Comments on: The Los Angeles Times Has Not Set Things Right on the Scalia Tape Controversy http://patterico.com/2004/04/13/the-ilos-angeles-timesi-has-not-set-things-right-on-the-scalia-tape-controversy/ Harangues that just make sense Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:44:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Kevin Murphy http://patterico.com/2004/04/13/the-ilos-angeles-timesi-has-not-set-things-right-on-the-scalia-tape-controversy/#comment-1610 Kevin Murphy Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1436#comment-1610 >>In fact, I wouldn't be shocked to see letters printed on the issue in the coming days, suggesting that Justice Scalia is lying when he says he didn't issue the orders to the deputy marshal. >>In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked to see letters printed on the issue in the coming days, suggesting that Justice Scalia is lying when he says he didn’t issue the orders to the deputy marshal.

]]> By: Mike Northrup http://patterico.com/2004/04/13/the-ilos-angeles-timesi-has-not-set-things-right-on-the-scalia-tape-controversy/#comment-1611 Mike Northrup Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1436#comment-1611 Yes, Scalia apologized. However, I am a little disturbed by your recitation of the events. You have omitted the key fact that Scalia AND the U.S. Marshal's office both admit that Scalia outright banned TV recording from his speeches, and he had a less-than-consistent policy regarding tape recordings, but he DID tell them that he did not want any recordings. He has since (in connection with his apology) stated that he is changing his policy. Your report that the action was not taken at his direction, may be true, but the statement could be read incorrectly to suggest that Scalia never directed that his speeches not be recorded. "The action" Scalia is referencing apparently refers to the actions of the U.S. Marshals and their treatment of this particular reporter insofar as demanding her tape recording and erasing it. Let's all be fair in our reporting... Yes, Scalia apologized. However, I am a little disturbed by your recitation of the events. You have omitted the key fact that Scalia AND the U.S. Marshal’s office both admit that Scalia outright banned TV recording from his speeches, and he had a less-than-consistent policy regarding tape recordings, but he DID tell them that he did not want any recordings. He has since (in connection with his apology) stated that he is changing his policy. Your report that the action was not taken at his direction, may be true, but the statement could be read incorrectly to suggest that Scalia never directed that his speeches not be recorded. “The action” Scalia is referencing apparently refers to the actions of the U.S. Marshals and their treatment of this particular reporter insofar as demanding her tape recording and erasing it. Let’s all be fair in our reporting…

]]> By: Patterico http://patterico.com/2004/04/13/the-ilos-angeles-timesi-has-not-set-things-right-on-the-scalia-tape-controversy/#comment-1612 Patterico Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1436#comment-1612 I can't help it if you misread what I say. What I say in this post is that Scalia did not direct the deputy marshal to take the illegal actions of confiscating and erasing recordings. I link to an earlier post of mine in which I set forth the entire context more thoroughly, and say: "Justice Scalia has a standing request that audience members not tape his speeches given in private settings." On blogs, if you haven't read the linked items previously, you should. We can't repeat everything we say in every post. Nothing I have said, especially when you read the posts that I have linked to, could be read in the way you have suggested. There is no equation between your misreading of my post and the <i>Times</i>'s deception in hiding facts they didn't like. I can’t help it if you misread what I say. What I say in this post is that Scalia did not direct the deputy marshal to take the illegal actions of confiscating and erasing recordings. I link to an earlier post of mine in which I set forth the entire context more thoroughly, and say: “Justice Scalia has a standing request that audience members not tape his speeches given in private settings.” On blogs, if you haven’t read the linked items previously, you should. We can’t repeat everything we say in every post.

Nothing I have said, especially when you read the posts that I have linked to, could be read in the way you have suggested.

There is no equation between your misreading of my post and the Times’s deception in hiding facts they didn’t like.

]]> By: Mike Northrup http://patterico.com/2004/04/13/the-ilos-angeles-timesi-has-not-set-things-right-on-the-scalia-tape-controversy/#comment-1613 Mike Northrup Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1436#comment-1613 Thank you for your clarification. It's your blog, yes. You can post how you like, even if you want to tell the story in snipits in hopes that your readers won't backtrack to find the context and the truth. That's how people get misquoted and things get taken out of context. Isn't that what you are against? Thank you for your clarification. It’s your blog, yes. You can post how you like, even if you want to tell the story in snipits in hopes that your readers won’t backtrack to find the context and the truth. That’s how people get misquoted and things get taken out of context. Isn’t that what you are against?

]]> By: Patterico http://patterico.com/2004/04/13/the-ilos-angeles-timesi-has-not-set-things-right-on-the-scalia-tape-controversy/#comment-1614 Patterico Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 /?p=1436#comment-1614 Your reading is an unreasonable interpretation of what I said. As evidenced by a <a href="http://patterico.com/archives/002138.php#1203" rel="nofollow">comment</a> of yours on a related thread, I don't think you understand what happened in this case. Your reading is an unreasonable interpretation of what I said. As evidenced by a comment of yours on a related thread, I don’t think you understand what happened in this case.

]]>