Power Line News

Linda Greenhouse covers the Supreme Court for the New York Times, and the liberal bias with she performs that task is legendary. As if this weren’

» View the article

JOHN adds: Greenhouse’s obliviousness to an obvious conflict of interest can be understood, I think, only in the context of the absurdly low standards maintained by the New York Times.

I’d like to know what they are teaching in journalism schools regarding the ethics of marriage to participants in political activities. I think the phenomenon is wider spread than just the NYT. Nina Easton often acknowledges that her husband is a campaign operative for Romney. I don’t think these people should be allowed to pontificate on issues at all. If Greenhouse’s husband has filed a brief or has a client before the courts on which she reports, she should not be allowed to report on the case.

It has long been my belief that the term “journalistic ethics” is oxymoronic. Other than the organization cited in the post, there are no legal constraints on the things that journalists do professionally. Whereas professions like medicine and law are regulated by professional boards that can and do remove license to practice when standards are violated. In addition, for physicians anyway, activities that are normally taboo in society are permitted (cutting open a person in surgery for example) but without the proper consent or license to practice those same activities constitute battery. In journalism it is apparently all right to publish government secrets, conceal from police the identity of criminals and in this case, to pretend to be objective about reporting whie not revealing a conflict of interest. Nowadays physicians publishing scientific papers are expected to disclose any and all financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Would that the New York Times join the 21st century and require its reporters to reveal the same potential conflicts!

Another case of journalistic conflict of interest due to marriage worth mentioning is Dana Priest’s, author of the WaPo’s treasonous CIA Renditions Program reporting, union with William Chester Goodfellow, Communist fellow traveler and 60’s era agitator who himself has a long sordid history of treasonous, sedititious liasons behind him.
If Roosevelt had a legitimate reason to inter the West Coast Japanese during WWII, there’s even more compelling reason to root out and inter the sedition within today. The War on Terror needs to begin right here at home, now!
“A house divided against itself, cannot long stand.”

Of COURSE ...

A “conflict of interest” exists. The NY Times thrives on insider information, leaked national secrets, and even hearsay to make whatever left-wing point will enable DhimmiCrats to rule the country and provide even more plush and comfortable treatment of the enemy.

Eugene Fidell’s amicus brief, that his wife gushed over, can be found here in a pdf file:

http://tinyurl.com/24popt

WARNING: This is simply standard fare from the usual suspects - “Human Rights First“, “Human Rights Watch“, the “American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee”, AND the “Socialist Workers Party”, among others.  Are you getting the drift YET?

The Summary, beginning on page 15, states the desire for an Independent Court to rule on the legality of “Executive Detention”.

The brief maintains that the detainees are imprisoned based upon “hearsay by bounty hunters”, and that said imprisonment is “Kafkaesque”.

The brief goes on to lament the suspension of Habeas Corpus, the violation of the Separation of Powers ... blah, blah, blah … ALL standard radical left-wing fare.

Where I come from, people like Ms. Linda are referred to as disingenuous, agenda-driven whöres.  Which I suppose pretty much sums up not only the New York Times, but the MSM in general.

Enjoy the read.  It would be downright comical were it not so dangerous to America and her security.

.

Guilt by association is not a fitting attribute for this site.  Please do the character evaluations based on the person’s own merits.

ss396 - 15 December 2007 01:36 PM

Guilt by association is not a fitting attribute for this site.  Please do the character evaluations based on the person’s own merits.

WTF?

Are you sure you posted that in the right thread?

you must be related to her ...

Perhaps yer Carter/Rochester Carb needs a re-build.

.

tinkerbelch - 15 December 2007 11:08 AM

Another case of journalistic conflict of interest due to marriage worth mentioning is Dana Priest’s, author of the WaPo’s treasonous CIA Renditions Program reporting, union with William Chester Goodfellow, Communist fellow traveler and 60’s era agitator who himself has a long sordid history of treasonous, sedititious liasons behind him.
If Roosevelt had a legitimate reason to inter the West Coast Japanese during WWII, there’s even more compelling reason to root out and inter the sedition within today. The War on Terror needs to begin right here at home, now!
“A house divided against itself, cannot long stand.”

Another clear example of this is the Associated Press’ Jennifer Loven, who regularly writes high-profile stories out of Washington. Her husband, Roger Ballentine, was a senior adviser to John Kerry in 2004, and had earlier heen an advisor to Bill Clinton. It’s my understanding that the two are no longer married but I can’t confirm this.

Jennifer’s biased “reporting” has been regularly exposed here on Powerline, as well as over at Newsbusters.

ss396 - 15 December 2007 01:36 PM

Guilt by association is not a fitting attribute for this site.  Please do the character evaluations based on the person’s own merits.

If “guilt by association” is backed by evidence, which is certainly the case here, it’s fair game. You’re just upset because in the old pre-internet days such a blatant conflict of interest would never see the light of day.