Editorial on Roberts Adoption Investigation Controversy
A newspaper has editorialized against the New York Times‘s decision to investigate the adoption records of John Roberts’s children. The Delaware County Times, a Pennsylvania newspaper, opines:
It has been reported that at least one news organization took preliminary steps to look into the sealed adoption records of the children of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. What the reporters were hoping to find is anybody’s guess, but the response to this effort has been swift and negative.
Rightly so.
The argument can be fairly made there is very little about a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court that we should not know. But even with these lifetime appointments, which have the capability of having such a dramatic effect on our lives, there are some things that should be off limits. And when individual organizations fail to recognize such lines exist, they do harm to us all.
In the debate over this controversy, some people I respect have raised hypothetical scenarios asking: what if the newspaper was tipped off that there was something potentially illegal about the adoptions? That would present a closer question — not enough to attempt to obtain sealed records, in my view, but (if the tip seemed legitimate and not politically motivated) perhaps enough to ask some questions. The editorial addresses this distinction:
It would be one thing if a legitimate question had been independently raised about the legality of the Roberts’ adoption. But this sounds more like a fishing expedition. Or worse, a witch-hunt for any damaging information that can be found to derail Roberts’ nomination.
Back when Sen. Joe McCarthy sought to out real and imagined communists from the U.S. government in the 1950s, it took a lawyer named Joseph Welch to publicly shame him with the question, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Some of us should be asking ourselves the same thing.
Nice job. Sounds like the folks at this paper have their heads screwed on straight, which is more than you can say for the folks at the NYT.
UPDATE: The New Hampshire Union Leader runs this letter to the editor on the controversy, with a special introduction by the editors.
“Back when Sen. Joe McCarthy sought to out real and imagined communists from the U.S. government in the 1950s, it took a lawyer named Joseph Welch to publicly shame him with the question, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency”
This is a clear example of the difference: McCarthy performed his fishing in public. The entire point was the fishing. As far as I can tell, the times checked to see if there was something newsworthy. Its certainly plausible — though I don’t think probable — that there be something newsworthy.
actus (a5f574) — 8/9/2005 @ 7:42 amDon’t let the Delco Times (as we call it) fool you. It is a liberal rag.
Brian (1ea956) — 8/9/2005 @ 9:18 amI don’t think the analogy to McCarthy is accurate. McCarthy was before my time but as I understand it his sin was not investigating whether there were communists in important positions in the US government which would have been completely legitimate (although perhaps unpopular in cetain circles) but his habit of starting by making wild and unsupported charges based on little or nothing and then conducting “investigations” seeking to justify his initial charges rather than determine the facts.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 8/9/2005 @ 10:14 amThere is an important ethical difference between a fishing expedition and a witch hunt.
What are the media for, if not to fish? A witch hunt, by contrast, names the charges prior to “finding” the evidence. I know: details, details…
The folks who supposedly have their heads “screwed on straight” engage in a familiar pattern: hyperbolize until any sense of proportion is lost; then make a “value judgment”. But value judgments are based on proportion & context. These folks are all wet.
biwah (f5ca22) — 8/9/2005 @ 10:24 am“What are the media for, if not to fish?”
Not to belittle your question, because it strikes at the heart of what is driving down circulation numbers in liberal rags across the country, but follows are some things that I think the media *should* be good for:
1) Objectivity
Scott (57c0cc) — 8/10/2005 @ 12:27 pm2) Accuracy
3) Fairness
4) Accountability