Sunday, August 12, 2007
Greenhouse Gas Bag
Ann Coulter is right: Liberalism is so consistently wrongheaded that liberals have to lie about what and who they are and conceal it from the public.
The latest case in point: Linda Greenhouse, the SCOTUS reporter for the New York Times, who just recently pitched a bitch about appearing on a panel because the presence of C-SPAN cameras meant that somehow, somewhere, someone outside of her little cloister might hear what she said.
Fine.
I'm not one of those people who thinks that someone who swings right or left is genetically incapable of writing a fair news story. And it's even easier for a court reporter, because, thank God, the Supreme Court picks the cases, not the journalists. And the justices create written opionions to prevent the journalists from lying too much. So there's only so much damage a Supreme Court reporter can do.
But here's the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz profiling Linda Greenhouse last year.
No, characterizing Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Haditha as deliberately created "law-free zones" is quite clearly a statement of opionion - not of fact. In my opinion, it is clearly the statement of opinion of a dull-witted liberal.
Which brings me to my point: If a reporter ought to be expected to have ANY core competency at all, shouldn't it be the ability to discern a statement of fact from a statement of opionion? Is that apparently too much to ask?
And given that this very basic capacity to reason is universally expected of judges (well, except among liberals, I guess), isn't the ability for a reporter on this beat to possess this core competency?
Really, is there anything more basic to the reporter's job - especially when covering the Supreme Court - than to be able to separate fact from opinion?
And now that we know this ability is beyond Linda Greenhouse, even on so basic a subject as Abu Ghraib and Hadithah, well, no wonder she objects to cameras capturing her rantings outside the news page.
Greenhouse continues:
No. What's sanctimonious is her expectation of being exempt from the scrutiny of her own remarks. What's sanctimonious is when she dismisses her READERSHIP as "self-appointed media watchdogs."
Well, just where does Linda Greenhouse derive her own commission as a watchdog over the Supreme Court? Pinch Sulzberger? Spare me.
Linda derives her commission to act as a court watchdog from the same source as I do, and from the same source as any blogger: From the respect and trust of her readers.
Earth to Greenhouse: Get over it.
Splash, out
Jason
The latest case in point: Linda Greenhouse, the SCOTUS reporter for the New York Times, who just recently pitched a bitch about appearing on a panel because the presence of C-SPAN cameras meant that somehow, somewhere, someone outside of her little cloister might hear what she said.
Fine.
I'm not one of those people who thinks that someone who swings right or left is genetically incapable of writing a fair news story. And it's even easier for a court reporter, because, thank God, the Supreme Court picks the cases, not the journalists. And the justices create written opionions to prevent the journalists from lying too much. So there's only so much damage a Supreme Court reporter can do.
But here's the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz profiling Linda Greenhouse last year.
he aired some of them in June when she was honored at Harvard, saying that "our government had turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other places around the world. And let's not forget the sustained assault on women's reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism."
Don't those remarks, publicized last week by National Public Radio, go too far for a beat reporter covering such issues at the high court? Greenhouse says her comments were "statements of fact," not opinion, as underscored by the court striking down the administration's policy of holding terror suspects without charges.
No, characterizing Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Haditha as deliberately created "law-free zones" is quite clearly a statement of opionion - not of fact. In my opinion, it is clearly the statement of opinion of a dull-witted liberal.
Which brings me to my point: If a reporter ought to be expected to have ANY core competency at all, shouldn't it be the ability to discern a statement of fact from a statement of opionion? Is that apparently too much to ask?
And given that this very basic capacity to reason is universally expected of judges (well, except among liberals, I guess), isn't the ability for a reporter on this beat to possess this core competency?
Really, is there anything more basic to the reporter's job - especially when covering the Supreme Court - than to be able to separate fact from opinion?
And now that we know this ability is beyond Linda Greenhouse, even on so basic a subject as Abu Ghraib and Hadithah, well, no wonder she objects to cameras capturing her rantings outside the news page.
Greenhouse continues:
"The notion that someone cannot go and speak from the heart to a group of college classmates and fellow alums, without being accountable to self-appointed media watchdogs, means American journalism is in danger of strangling in its own sanctimony,"
No. What's sanctimonious is her expectation of being exempt from the scrutiny of her own remarks. What's sanctimonious is when she dismisses her READERSHIP as "self-appointed media watchdogs."
Well, just where does Linda Greenhouse derive her own commission as a watchdog over the Supreme Court? Pinch Sulzberger? Spare me.
Linda derives her commission to act as a court watchdog from the same source as I do, and from the same source as any blogger: From the respect and trust of her readers.
Earth to Greenhouse: Get over it.
Splash, out
Jason
Comments:
While I do agree with your opinion of this lady, supposedly she was the only person on the panel not informed that is was to be videoed. She required the cameras to be shut down or she would not appear. I understand her being disturbed because she did not receive the E-mail all the others did and voicing it, but she went over the line when she had the cameras shut down. Here I am assuming it was an open meeting; if so cameras or not, what is the difference, unless you don't want the general public to know your real opinions (not facts, I agree) as a member of the small group of journalists covering the Supreme Court.
Post a Comment
