I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Sully- who wrote (12956)	8/5/2005 9:10:26 AM
From: Sully-	of 35834

Betsy's Page I don't have much to add to the outrage that people have been feelign about the New York Times trying to break into the sealed adoption records of Judge Roberts two young children except my own deep sense of outrage. Was the assignment to find anything on Roberts no matter what? What did they think they were going to find? And how did they think that would apply to Roberts' abilities to be a good justice? It's hard to get into the mindset that would think that the public's right to know includes information that is legally secret to protect children. I guess that whole right to privacy thing doesn't apply when it's the Old Gray Lady sticking her nose into people's very private family relationships. I wonder if they worked so hard to get Kerry's divorce records? Michelle Malkin has a good roundup of links and this form letter that the Times public editor is sending out to people who complained. <<< Dear Reader, Thanks for writing to us. While the public editor does not usually get involved in pre-publication matters, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts's children. He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this issue. In addition, a senior editor at the paper wrote, "In the case of Judge Roberts's family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions." Sincerely, Joe Plambeck Office of the Public Editor The New York Times Note: The public editor's opinions are his own and do not represent those of The New York Times >>> The letter still doesn't explain why they made the inquiries in the first place. There is no indication that they thought something was wrong with the adoption - just checking in case there might have been. John McCain has an adopted child, I believe. Did they do the same thing with him. And what does it mean to say that "he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts's children." What would be non-gratuitous reporting about two small children? The reporters can report their existence and their behavior at the nomination ceremony but for a reporter to have done anything beyond that would seem to me to fit the definition of "gratuitous reporting." And they went there. They need to apologize. I'm sure that this will not go any further than this. The uproar is just too justified. But chalk up another reason that people dislike the media. betsyspage.blogspot.com foxnews.com michellemalkin.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next