More on Greenhouse’s Ethics Problem
One month ago, I told you that Ed Whelan had written the New York Times about a fairly blatant conflict of interest by Linda Greenhouse. In 2006, despite the fact that her husband filed an amicus brief in the Hamdan case, Greenhouse reported on the case without disclosing the conflict to readers. Worse, she gushed about the result in a way favorable to her husband’s position, saying that the opinion “shredded each of the administration’s arguments” and was a “sweeping and categorical defeat for the administration” that
left human rights lawyers who have pressed this and other cases on behalf of Guantánamo detainees almost speechless with surprise and delight, using words like “fantastic,” “amazing” and “remarkable.”
In his e-mail to the NYT ombudsman, Whelan also referenced a slightly less obvious but more recent conflict involving the Boumediene case — namely, Greenhouse reported on the case despite the fact that her husband had filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeals.
With the lightning speed characteristic of our Dinosaur Media, the New York Times ombudsman has gotten back to Ed. Already! It’s only been a month! Here is the ombudsman’s response:
Thank you for writing. I am aware of your blog post and am looking into the issue. Linda Greenhouse tells me, categorically, that her husband, Eugene Fidell, has never represented any detainee, is not involved as a lawyer in the case about which you wrote and did not file a brief in that case. I’d appreciate it if you could steer me to the brief you said he filed.
None of this has anything to do with the conflict I referenced in my post: Greenhouse’s reporting on the Hamdan case, where her husband did file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court.
In any event, the defense regarding the Boumediene case is obfuscation. Greenhouse’s husband “has never represented any detainee” — he just filed an amicus brief on their behalf. He didn’t file a brief in the Boumediene case in the Supreme Court — he filed one in the Court of Appeals . . . and Ed says “the entity he heads filed a brief in the Supreme Court proceeding.”
Ed has replied, but I don’t envy his task. He will likely wait another month and get another deliberately obtuse reply.
They just want Ed to give up.
Ed finishes his new blog post with this:
Memo to Greenhouse: It’s well past time for you to come clean. Remember, it’s always the coverup that kills you.
Yup — for politicians. Because Big Media knows how to investigate politicians, with a dogged refusal to accept the sort of B.S. the NYT is feeding Ed. But Big Media doesn’t know how to investigate itself. (To be fair, who does? That’s why we bloggers are here.)
You see, with Big Media, they think it’s the coverup that covers things up. Because they get away with stuff like this all the time.
We’ll see if they get away with this. It wouldn’t hurt for more people to be discussing it.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 01/15/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
David M (447675) — 1/15/2008 @ 8:30 amI am beginning to wonder why anyone ever expects the old media to be honest and forthright when caught redhanded in dishonesty, fraud, bias or conflict of interest. We have the WaPost having to return Pulitizers for fabricated stories that fit the WaPost’s get a GOP administration bias. The NYTimes is even lower into the “We lie all the time and we don’t care if you caught us” swamp.
The only thing is not to buy anything from them and tell their advertisers that you aren’t buying anything from them either.
PCD (5c49b0) — 1/15/2008 @ 8:34 amI’m at the point of disconnecting everything and just living the rest of my life as if there were no “America”….if 90-95% of academia and the MSM is so corrupt why do any of us even bother? The children are being brainwashed; the local politicians are taking over our lives; the feds and the politicians are enriching themselves, their friends and family at our expense…what is the point? In my case, the point is that perhaps my grandkids can move to New Zealand or Austrialia in the future and forget about American values…they’ve lost ’em!!
Sue (7c440b) — 1/15/2008 @ 9:22 amBesides, you can’t prove that the memos were forged. Oh, wait, that was not Greenhouse was it?
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:20 amThey might honestly want to investigate it properly, before condemning her, because the consequences can be grave for a reporter who is involved with a newsmaker. A very fine Chicago Sun Times reporter was first taken off the City Hall beat and then eased out altogether because he struck up a relationship with the City Treasurer. Just saying.
nk (dda711) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:20 amWhat kind of conflict could an amicus filing create?If her husband hadn’t filed an amicus, but had instead written reports or law review articles containing the same content as the amicus, would there still be a conflict of interest? And what are even the interests at stake? They seem ideological and positional, not monetary.
stef (b48186) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:23 amObjectivity.
nk (dda711) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:26 amNYT asks, “What’s that, and why should we care about it?”
quasimodo (edc74e) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:34 amUh, gee, stef, you would think that an ideological conflict would be important to a news organization.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:36 am“Uh, gee, stef, you would think that an ideological conflict would be important to a news organization.”
But the amicus filing is the ideology of the organization her husband works for. Not her ideology. Her husband’s amicus filing does not create within her an ideological conflict of interest with reporting objectively on this story.
Would the ideology not be a problem if there had been no amicus filing? Or if the side her husband supported had lost?
stef (bfb3b7) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:44 amThe long term problem arising from all this is that the American public is being influenced by all these dinosaur media reports. I was listening to O’Reilly driving to the office this morning. He says a survey has 83% of the public saying they want policies other than those of Bush adopted by the next president.
That suggests to me that we are looking at President Obama next year. The trouble is that he will have to face the same problems Bush has and he will have convinced the public that he will deal with them differently. Unfortunately, as Clinton found out (but that was a time of peace), the problems have mostly the same solution no matter who is president. The difference is that the new president may be less enthusiastic or less skillful in handling them. The public becomes disenchanted and public life drifts to a least common denominator of populist nonsense that doesn’t do anything about serious matters. We see that already with Huckabee.
Thus, dishonest reporting, as here, leads the public to support fake solutions to real problems, like jihadism and Social Security. The people who are doing the lying think they are doing it in a good cause; elect the people they think are the best choice. The trouble is that they are not providing honest data and so the public cannot judge the merits of the question. We then get the modern equivalent of bread and circuses. MTV, for example.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:59 amI don’t know that Obama would be a worse President than Carter or Clinton. I can practically guarantee you that he will not be seducing interns. There is a way to decrease the President’s impact, you know. Vote for the Congressman and Senator you want too.
nk (dda711) — 1/15/2008 @ 11:03 am“Would the ideology not be a problem if there had been no amicus filing?”
Yes, stef, because the ideology is not the problem; the problem is that he filed an amicus brief. He was not just a sympathetic observer; he was an active participant in the story. Suppose he had been the lead trial attorney defending a criminal defendant who was acquitted. And suppose Greenhouse was covering the trial. And suppose she reported that the stunning acquittal resulted from the “fantastic,” “amazing,” and “remarkable” lawyering by defense counsel. And suppose she did not disclose that she was married to defense counsel. If you concede that would be a problem, then we’re only haggling about the price.
Michael Hertzberg (d671ab) — 1/15/2008 @ 11:09 am“If you concede that would be a problem, then we’re only haggling about the price.”
Price is key, because that is the interest you have identified: she’s reporting on her husband’s work, which directly affects his financial interest and, since they are married, therefore hers. That is the conflict: she has an interest in the story. But if her husband was simply someone who was against the drug war, and this was a brilliant acquittal of a drug dealer? She has no interest in that case.
Wives should not imputed the ideological positions of their husbands. James Carville does not have to disclose the ideological position of his wife when he praises partisan efforts.
stef (9c4cb9) — 1/15/2008 @ 11:18 amDon’t buy the NYT. It is that simple. Blog posts don’t matter to them, and they’re confident noo other newspaper will blow their cover. Heck, they published a hit piece on veterans just the other day, using statistical evidence that proved just the opposite case to the one they were making, and Newsweek just yesterday published an article saying the NYT had reported genuinely disturbing facts. No reference to the truth at all.
The Times is confident they’re tawdry journalism won’t be exposed, and you know they are right in their belief.
Don’t buy the paper. The shareholders will finally start to care.
Andrew (414e22) — 1/15/2008 @ 11:48 amAndrew, the NYT has been losing money for years. But the corp is controlled by the family of the publisher who has intentionally adopted these editorial policies. They appear to be insulated from market pressures.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/15/2008 @ 11:51 am“In any event, the defense regarding the Boumediene case is obfuscation. Greenhouse’s husband “has never represented any detainee” — he just filed an amicus brief on their behalf”
An amicus brief is not on the behalf of a party. It may, and in this case does, support a party. It is on behalf of the entity filing it.
This sort of thing helps to promote the confusion here.
stef (443388) — 1/15/2008 @ 11:51 amThe conflict is that her husband is involved in the case.
The primary issue is not that she shouldn’t have reported on the case. The primary issue is that when she did report on the case, she failed to acknowledge her husband’s involvement in the case. Whether he was involved in the winning side or the losing side is irrelevant.
It’s best policy to acknowledge any such connection up front, no matter how tenuous, and then let the readers decide whether it is relevant.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 1/15/2008 @ 11:56 am“The conflict is that her husband is involved in the case.”
He’s an amicus. Not on ‘behalf’ of a party as patterico says. He’s on behalf of his organization which promotes a position which supports one party.
But why does her husband’s amicus involvement affect her?
stef (6daf1b) — 1/15/2008 @ 12:35 pmStef, perhaps it doesn’t. But that is a conclusion that the reader should reach, not Greenhouse. She should have disclosed.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/15/2008 @ 12:50 pmStef,
You don’t believe that her husband advocating on behalf of one of the parties in a story she is reporting on does not represent a conflict? Even though it is only an amicus brief?
I agree that in the grand scheme of conflicts, this is not the greatest one ever demonstrated, but, particularly with this specific reporter, it is a pattern of such abuses. Had she simply put right in the story that her husband filed the amicus brief, there would really be no issue.
That is why the media has very little credibility overall. It pretends that reporters have no biases and are completely objective, which every human alive knows is an impossibility. We should simply return to the era when journalists put their party/ideological biases right up front, and allowed readers to determine how it effects the reporters credibility, rather than this insane dance where they try to hide their various biases and affiliations but seem to routinely get caught.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 1/15/2008 @ 12:51 pmThe myth of press neutrality is pretty recent. In World War II the Chicago Tribune opposed Roosevelt and the war. It published the Rainbow V plan a week before Pearl Harbor and published the information that we had broken the Japanese codes after the battle of Midway. Lincoln’s press was as hostile and insulting as that toward Bush. Worse, if anything. One major difference was that there were lots of papers in those days and the affiliation was open and widely known. Nobody assumed that they were getting a neutral version. Also, if you read the newspapers from that era, the people reading them seemed much more literate than today’s average reader.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 1/15/2008 @ 1:18 pm“You don’t believe that her husband advocating on behalf of one of the parties in a story she is reporting on does not represent a conflict?”
It’s in support of a party. It’s representing his own group. She doesn’t mention the people he is representing or anything about an amicus impact.
“Had she simply put right in the story that her husband filed the amicus brief, there would really be no issue.”
Disclosure is always an easy solution. But people’s partners are always taking positions. She has no interest to disclose by her partner’s having taken a position. If she stood to have him earn money, and therefore her too, she would have an interest to disclose. But not here.
stef (1bf27e) — 1/15/2008 @ 1:20 pmStef,
Here is the NYT Code of Ethics.
nk (dda711) — 1/15/2008 @ 1:45 pmThis would be the relivant part, in my mind…
Scott Jacobs (c0db90) — 1/15/2008 @ 1:49 pmIt involves her because she obviously has a huge bias, and her husband has a stake in the outcomes, even if just his ability to jack his rates up, or maybe get some Saudi Money defending these guys.
How a Jewish lawyer could stand up for these guys, and how a Jewish journalist could propagandize for them is stunning. These Islamists are just as genocidal as Hitler was, they have the same goals in that regard, and have a history of cooperation with the Nazis in terms of propaganda and purpose. The only hope is that Arabs are not nearly as efficient killers as the Germans were.
martin (d3fe32) — 1/15/2008 @ 2:13 pmStef, it is more than a little puzzling why you are defending this lost cause. She covered a story in which her spouse had actively participated and did not disclose. You keep trying to avoid that fact with strawmen about financial conflicts which are not the subject..
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/15/2008 @ 2:13 pm“This would be the relivant part, in my mind…”
She’s not in violation of that. She doesn’t conceal anything; there is no ambiguity about whose opinion the amicus brief represents: her husband’s organization, not hers; and she did not work on news content about her relatives. At most there is the appearance of a conflict, but her husband’s participation isn’t very high profile, and she is not reporting on it.
Note though that the policy requires disclosure to the newsroom/editors. Not the public. And the remedy is avoiding reporting, not disclosure to the public.
stef (fe8ab9) — 1/15/2008 @ 2:17 pmnk wrote: I don’t know that Obama would be a worse President than Carter or Clinton. I can practically guarantee you that he will not be seducing interns.
Emphasis on the “practically.” The way women react to Tony Robbins-with-a-tan, no, he wouldn’t be seducing interns, they would be crawling all over him.
I don’t believe anyone is immune from the temptation that comes from being a magnet man, which is what you are if you make it to D.C. Women of questionable character love men with money and men with power, regardless of the guy’s looks. Obama has money, power, AND looks.
As to whether he would be as bad as Carter or Clinton: If he is elected and lives down to expectations, I’d be happy if all the damage he would do would be reminiscent of Slick. I think we have all seen the results of having a closet pacifist as President.
L.N. Smithee (e1f2bf) — 1/15/2008 @ 2:47 pmLawyers can and do represent parties whom they (the lawyers) absolutely disagree with, and even detest. Criminal defense lawyers have a role to play in our system that absolutely depends upon their commitment to “the system,” even though they may not at all identify, on a personal basis, with the individuals whom they represent. Lawyers have a duty to represent their respective clients zealously within the bounds of the law.
The paradigmatic historical example of this is John Adams, one of the most prominent — and pro-Revolutionary — lawyers and public figures of his day successfully defending British Redcoats accused of murder in the Boston Massacre. A more modern example is Fred Thompson, who gave lobbying advice to a pro-abortion group at the request of a partner at the Washington law firm to which Thompson was then “of counsel.”
That all being said and understood and (by at least some people) accepted: The problem that Patterico here points out is the nondisclosure — followed by active obfuscation — of a relationship that ought to have been disclosed. Had it been fully disclosed, individual readers of the NYT could have made their own decisions about the extent, if any, to which they ought to impute Greenhouse’s husband’s client’s positions to him and thence to Greenhouse (and her employer, the NYT).
But there’s no defense for an active cover-up, which is what this clearly has become.
And in the real world, it’s very common for pro bono lawyers, or lawyers who are in academe and/or employed by advocacy groups, to be the most passionately invested, on a personal level, in the causes they’re representing in court. If Greenhouse’s husband was “merely” another hired gun, or associated with a law firm who was hired by a paying client to represent that client’s position, we ought to be especially reluctant to draw inferences of bias. But if, as I suspect was more likely the case, he was filing those briefs because just like his nominal purported client (amicus or not), he’s a committed and passionate “true believer,” then the existence of bias is far greater, the nondisclosure far more serious, and the cover-up far more pernicious.
Beldar (759113) — 1/15/2008 @ 5:26 pmHey everyone:
It would be much appreciated if you could visit my new blog:
http://www.slickblog.wordpress.com
I am trying to lift it off the ground so it would be appreciated if you could comment, thank you.
slickleb (cb2035) — 1/15/2008 @ 5:42 pmBeldar, you really should post more often. I love yer stuff.
Something about pontificating lawyers that just sounds cool.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 1/15/2008 @ 6:00 pmnk wrote, “I don’t know that Obama would be a worse President than Carter or Clinton.”
Could you be a little less sure of yourself? 🙂
“I can practically guarantee you that he will not be seducing interns.”
There certainly is no evidence that Obama is more likely to do this than the average man (unlike Clinton), innocent until proven guilty, etc. But “practically guarantee” is very strong. Do you know something we don’t know?
Jim C. (a79dbc) — 1/15/2008 @ 7:12 pmJust a hunch. I have a lot of reasons not to want Obama as my President, but that he is not a good husband and father is not one of them.
nk (dda711) — 1/15/2008 @ 7:19 pmThat is the one thing that he has going for him, at least in my book. I think his politics are naive, and lacking any real compass and substance, but for whatever reason, I do not doubt that he is a good man. Misguided. Wrong-headed, sure. But a good man.
JD (3cdc37) — 1/15/2008 @ 7:33 pmShouldn’t Greehhouse’s Ethics be in quotes in the title? In the alternative, oxymoron often?
JD (3cdc37) — 1/15/2008 @ 7:43 pmAL GORE IS A LIAR AND HYPOTCRIT
krazy kagu (711c87) — 1/15/2008 @ 8:34 pmBeldar, I don’t see how her spouse’s motivation is relevant — if it’s a problem only if he’s a partisan, how does it make a difference whether he filed an amicus or not?
I get the sense that what people want to see disclosed is not so much the (rather tenuous IMO) potential family bias, but the reporter’s ideological bias. Which isn’t a bad idea in general, but hardly SOP.
kenB (88b394) — 1/16/2008 @ 4:39 amMore media bias from last summer. It is the gift that keeps on giving.
Mike K (86bddb) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:53 amStef,
I hate to break it to you, but when you do an amicus brief, you are arguing for one side or the other to win. You may not be hired to represent the party, but you are certainly advocating on behalf of that party winning in that particular lawsuit.
Let’s say the judge was the person who wrote the amicus brief’s spouse. Is there a problem then?
So, when allegedly neutrally reporting on a case, when you are outlining the arguments for each side, not reporting that your spouse is arguing on behalf of one side’s position in the case is a conflict. No matter how much you try to parse out representing a party from representing another organization that has a ‘position’, you are arguing to the court, based on the facts of the the case, for one party to win or lose. All your parsing does not change that fact.
I really don’t understand how you can not see that.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 1/16/2008 @ 8:58 amBeldar, I don’t see how her spouse’s motivation is relevant — if it’s a problem only if he’s a partisan, how does it make a difference whether he filed an amicus or not?
I get the sense that what people want to see disclosed is not so much the (rather tenuous IMO) potential family bias, but the reporter’s ideological bias. Which isn’t a bad idea in general, but hardly SOP.
I disagree. If she is reporting the arguments of each side, it clearly is a conflict for her b/c her spouse is making arguments in the case. I think most people, if that fact is disclosed, would be skeptical that she is potraying the other side’s argument in the fairest and best light.
Great Banana (aa0c92) — 1/16/2008 @ 9:00 amStef, can you not see that some people just want to know where the OPINIONS of others come from???
reff (bff229) — 1/16/2008 @ 9:15 amGB: what does Greenhouse’s husband stand to gain if the case is decided in favor of the party his amicus supported?
kenB (1ad56f) — 1/16/2008 @ 11:52 amStatus, notoriety, prestige, cash …
JD (3cdc37) — 1/16/2008 @ 4:03 pmClients, etc … nothing to be gained.
This all reminds me of the Gleenwald/Mona talk of how lying and distorting in service of the narrative is alright.
On its face, this is obviously something that should be disclosed. That they choose to actively lie in attempting to cover up the conflict shows that even they know it is wrong.
JD (3cdc37) — 1/16/2008 @ 4:29 pmHow about the reverse, that the husband can brag about getting a favorable story planted about a party he’d filed an amicus brief in favor of.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2008 @ 5:02 pmIt’s hugely amusing that today’s NYT editorial is demanding televised Supreme Court hearings so that the NYT can make sure they are being “open and transparent.” You can’t make this stuff up. http://www.amusedcynic.com/?p=594
driver (faae10) — 1/16/2008 @ 5:55 pm“Stef, can you not see that some people just want to know where the OPINIONS of others come from”
Up above she someone cared that she was jewish. I don’t htink reporters need to disclose when they think the subjects of their story are going to hell. Nor do I think they should disclose what their husbands think of the subjects. The subject of this story was not the amicus briefs, it was not her husbands group.
“You may not be hired to represent the party, but you are certainly advocating on behalf of that party winning in that particular lawsuit.”
Because of your interest in the case. Which is not her interest in this case.
“How about the reverse, that the husband can brag about getting a favorable story planted about a party he’d filed an amicus brief in favor of.”
Something tells me she would have written this story amicus or not.
stef (35b408) — 1/16/2008 @ 6:57 pmStef, perhaps. But her concealment casts doubt on that, and her credibility, which is why she should have done it. That’s what conflict of interest disclosure is about.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:01 pm“GB: what does Greenhouse’s husband stand to gain if the case is decided in favor of the party his amicus supported?”
Not that much. And what he does gain will be attenuated, indirect, and can occur if the party his views support loses or win. But if his amicus brief becomes the basis of the decision? Then its big. And she shouldn’t report on his amicus brief.
stef (ad04f5) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:07 pmHe gains plenty. If you had the coin to afford him, and you knew he could get you favorable play in the pages of the NY Times, as he had done with prior clients, wouldn’t that be viewed as a positive?
staef – Your inability to acknowledge that she had a conflict, and was wrong in not disclosing it, just makes your generally civil manner seem like nothing but a fancy cover for a partisan hack.
JD (3cdc37) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:15 pm“Stef, perhaps. But her concealment casts doubt on that, and her credibility, which is why she should have done it. That’s what conflict of interest disclosure is about.”
But she didn’t conceal.
Actually, I was operating under the idea that he or his organization had filed a brief. Thats not the case. He’s just listed in the brief as a signatory to statement. Its ridiculous that this be a conflict with his wife reporting on this decision.
And the ethics rules she operates under — they were linked to above — don’t require disclosure to the public, rather they require she not report.
So should reporters report their religions?
stef (7417a5) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:15 pm“If you had the coin to afford him, and you knew he could get you favorable play in the pages of the NY Times, as he had done with prior clients, wouldn’t that be viewed as a positive”
If she reports on someone that pays her husband that is a conflict of interest. No doubt.
“Your inability to acknowledge that she had a conflict, and was wrong in not disclosing it, just makes your generally civil manner seem like nothing but a fancy cover for a partisan hack.”
Did you know he did not write or file an amicus brief to the supreme court? His name was just added in an addendum because he signed a statement.
stef (48e229) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:20 pmStrawman.
JD (3cdc37) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:27 pm“If you had the coin to afford him, and you knew he could get you favorable play in the pages of the NY Times, as he had done with prior clients, wouldn’t that be viewed as a positive”
If she reports on someone that pays her husband that is a conflict of interest. No doubt.
“Your inability to acknowledge that she had a conflict, and was wrong in not disclosing it, just makes your generally civil manner seem like nothing but a fancy cover for a partisan hack.”
Did you know he did not write or file an amicus brief to the supreme court in this last case? His name was just added in an addendum because he signed a statement. You’re not saying this is a conflict, are you?
The decision was good for human rights arguments. Lets say he was just a human rights lawyer. Not representing a party. Not amicus. Conflict?
stef (1d0ada) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:30 pm“Strawman.”
I agree. The point being that this loose definition that there is a conflict when the possible sources of her opinion may have something to say about the story being reported is a strawman.
stef (2963e1) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:33 pmstef, your problem is that you’ve taken your own subjective evaluation of whether there’s an imputable bias in Greenhouse’s reporting — you clearly believe there’s not — and you’ve let that be the beginning and end of the question for you. You therefore are missing the point entirely, and you merely keep circling back to your same conclusions.
Virtually everyone else who’s commenting would agree that you, as an individual, have a right to draw your own conclusions on that very subjective subject. (Most of us disagree with you in this particular situation, but I think most of us would recognize that everyone has the right to make up his/her own mind.)
But whether there is an unusual personal connection between Greenhouse and one side of this litigation, through her husband, is not a subjective question. It’s an objective fact. And it’s an objective fact from which others may draw (and indeed, have drawn) precisely the opposite subjective inference about her bias than you have drawn. That too is their (and my) right.
Those of us who are in professions who enjoy special privileges and who promote ourselves as being worthy of them — like representing someone in a lawsuit, or serving as a trustee for an institution, or reporting (supposedly objectively) for a major national media organization — are supposed to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” That means that we’re supposed to test ourselves, and to voluntarily recuse ourselves, whenever we think our judgment and the resulting performance of our professional duties may be compromised. But beyond that self-test, whenever there is a factual situation from which any reasonable person might draw an inference of bias, we’re supposed to disclose the objective facts and then we let people make up their own minds accordingly. We damned sure don’t do the opposite of that — which is to cover up, conceal, spin, and minimize the objective facts.
In some jobs — mine, for instance, as a lawyer — the appearances of impropriety may rise to the point that a judge could overrule my own self-evaluation and disqualify me from continuing in a particular representation. But in Greenhouse’s profession, it’s only the common sense and integrity of her media employer that could possibly provide such a remedy.
Once upon a time (and certainly within my own lifetime), the NYT would have immediately canned the offending journalist and apologized profusely to its readers for what’s not only a breach of their trust, but an active subversion of it (via the cover-up). Let’s all hold our breath waiting for that to happen today, eh?
Beldar (2f4e7b) — 1/16/2008 @ 8:55 pmBeldar – I like you more every time I read you.
JD (3cdc37) — 1/16/2008 @ 9:09 pm“stef, your problem is that you’ve taken your own subjective evaluation of whether there’s an imputable bias in Greenhouse’s reporting — you clearly believe there’s not — and you’ve let that be the beginning and end of the question for you.”
Not at all. I say, if there is a bias, it is because of her opinions, not her husbands. You can notice me saying this when I say that she would have written the same story amicus or not.
“Those of us who are in professions who enjoy special privileges and who promote ourselves as being worthy of them — like representing someone in a lawsuit, or serving as a trustee for an institution, or reporting (supposedly objectively) for a major national media organization — are supposed to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.””
Again, I think people are drawing way too much from this guy’s amicus participation. His amicus brief may support one side — but it represents his and his organizations view, not any party in the case.
There is no apperance of impropriety because it does not appear that she is writing about her husband or has the same interest as her husband in this case. There is no ambiguity as to whose opinion is in those amicus briefs: her husband’s not hers. Her husband is permitted to have strong opinions, to donate money to candidates, and to support legislation, all without creating conflicts with her. She does not have to note what opinions her husband is taking in public. Not according to the ethical rules that someone linked above.
“Once upon a time (and certainly within my own lifetime), the NYT would have immediately canned the offending journalist and apologized profusely to its readers for what’s not only a breach of their trust, but an active subversion of it (via the cover-up)”
She didn’t violate the NYT code which was linked above. If you know of people canned from the NYT for ethical violations, let us know.
But cover up? Please. Everyone here has acted above board without concealment. People’s names are on court records and the facts are all out there. The only facts that are not out there are what she did add: that her husband represents no detainee.
Lawyers do have a different code of interest conflicts. They have to disclose to all parties, unlike the NYT code of ethics. But that is because lawyers are doing something quite different. Its tied in to their zealous advocacy, its tied in to their requirements of competence, and its tied in to their requirements of honesty. And those are all tied in to the interests of the judicial system. Times reporters are before public opinion, not the courts. Very different. If you’re lumping in lawyers and trustees with reporters, you’re missing out on the ethics differences here.
stef (e66d8d) — 1/17/2008 @ 5:24 am“stef, your problem is that you’ve taken your own subjective evaluation of whether there’s an imputable bias in Greenhouse’s reporting — you clearly believe there’s not — and you’ve let that be the beginning and end of the question for you.”
Not at all. I say, if there is a bias, it is because of her opinions, not her husbands. You can notice me saying this when I say that she would have written the same story amicus or not. You can notice me saying this when I ask whether reporters should disclose when they think the subjects of their stories are going to hell because of their own mythologies.
“Those of us who are in professions who enjoy special privileges and who promote ourselves as being worthy of them — like representing someone in a lawsuit, or serving as a trustee for an institution, or reporting (supposedly objectively) for a major national media organization — are supposed to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.””
Again, I think people are drawing way too much from this guy’s amicus participation. His amicus brief may support one side — but it represents his and his organizations view, not any party in the case.
There is no apperance of impropriety because it does not appear that she is writing about her husband or has the same interest as her husband in this case. There is no ambiguity as to whose opinion is in those amicus briefs: her husband’s not hers. Her husband is permitted to have strong opinions, to donate money to candidates, and to support legislation, all without creating conflicts with her. She does not have to note what opinions her husband is taking in public. Not according to the ethical rules that someone linked above.
“Once upon a time (and certainly within my own lifetime), the NYT would have immediately canned the offending journalist and apologized profusely to its readers for what’s not only a breach of their trust, but an active subversion of it (via the cover-up)”
She didn’t violate the NYT code which was linked above. If you know of people canned from the NYT for ethical violations, let us know. The NYT just hired a guy that called for their criminal prosecution. Does that guy now have a conflict of interest which might affect his opinions? Could be. Is he that special and as privileged as a lawyer? Definately not.
But cover up? Please. Everyone here has acted above board without concealment. People’s names are on court records and the facts are all out there. The only facts that were not out there are what she did add: that her husband represents no detainee. Which is an important addition: her husband’s representation could have been confidential — interesting ethical issue then no?
Lawyers do have a different code of interest conflicts. They have to disclose to all parties, unlike the NYT code of ethics. But that is because lawyers are doing something quite different. Its tied in to their zealous advocacy, its tied in to their requirements of competence, and its tied in to their requirements of honesty. And those are all tied in to the interests of the judicial system. Times reporters are before public opinion, not the courts. Very different. If you’re lumping in lawyers and trustees with reporters, you’re missing out on the ethics differences here.
stef (77522f) — 1/17/2008 @ 5:40 am“stef, your problem is that you’ve taken your own subjective evaluation of whether there’s an imputable bias in Greenhouse’s reporting — you clearly believe there’s not — and you’ve let that be the beginning and end of the question for you.”
Not at all. I say, if there is a bias, it is because of her opinions, not her husbands. You can notice me saying this when I say that she would have written the same story amicus or not. You can notice me saying this when I ask whether reporters should disclose when they think the subjects of their stories are going to hell because of the mythology this reporter believes.
“Those of us who are in professions who enjoy special privileges and who promote ourselves as being worthy of them — like representing someone in a lawsuit, or serving as a trustee for an institution, or reporting (supposedly objectively) for a major national media organization — are supposed to avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.””
Again, I think people are drawing way too much from this guy’s amicus participation. His amicus brief may support one side — but it represents his and his organizations view, not any party in the case.
There is no apperance of impropriety because it does not appear that she is writing about her husband or has the same interest as her husband in this case. There is no ambiguity as to whose opinion is in those amicus briefs: her husband’s not hers. Her husband is permitted to have strong opinions, to donate money to candidates, and to support legislation, all without creating conflicts with her. She does not have to note what opinions her husband is taking in public. Not according to the ethical rules that someone linked above.
“Once upon a time (and certainly within my own lifetime), the NYT would have immediately canned the offending journalist and apologized profusely to its readers for what’s not only a breach of their trust, but an active subversion of it (via the cover-up)”
She didn’t violate the NYT code which was linked above. If you know of people canned from the NYT for ethical violations, let us know. The NYT just hired a guy that called for their criminal prosecution. Does that guy now have a conflict of interest which might affect his opinions? Could be. Is he that special and as privileged as a lawyer? Definately not.
But cover up? Please. Everyone here has acted above board without concealment. People’s names are on court records and the facts are all out there. The only facts that were not out there are what she did add: that her husband represents no detainee. Which is an important addition: her husband’s representation could have been confidential — interesting ethical issue then no?
Lawyers do have a different code of interest conflicts. They have to disclose to all parties, unlike the NYT code of ethics. But that is because lawyers are doing something quite different. Its tied in to their zealous advocacy, its tied in to their requirements of competence, and its tied in to their requirements of honesty. And those are all tied in to the interests of the judicial system. Times reporters are before public opinion, not the courts. Very different. If you’re lumping in lawyers and trustees with reporters, you’re missing out on the ethics differences here.
stef (781ed7) — 1/17/2008 @ 5:41 amStef, your claim is false. Greenhouse and the NYT did not disclose the reader that her husband was involved in the amicus brief. That was something that others had to put together.
You keep trying to defend this and your defense is getting farther and farther from the reality.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/17/2008 @ 6:02 am“Stef, your claim is false.”
Which claim?
“Greenhouse and the NYT did not disclose the reader that her husband was involved in the amicus brief. ”
And that is not concealment. And it is not required by her ethical rules that she disclose anything to the public.
stef (2b5cca) — 1/17/2008 @ 6:11 amActually, stef, yes, he has a conflict of interest, if his writes a brief for the government that says the NYT should be prosecuted,…
AND DOESN’T DISCLOSE THAT INFORMATION WHEN HE WRITES AN ARTICLE/COLUMN.
reff (bff229) — 1/17/2008 @ 7:10 amSorry, I meant to put “his wife writes a brief for the government…”
reff (bff229) — 1/17/2008 @ 7:11 am“Actually, stef, yes, he has a conflict of interest, if his writes a brief for the government that says the NYT should be prosecuted,…”
If his wife represents a party in a case in which he is reporting that raises conflict of interest issues. No doubt. But people seem to think that “opinion” is what creates these conflicts. I’m not so convinced.
But here, he doesn’t represent a party. He is an amicus. If she reported on the party he does represent, that would raise issues.
stef (95ac63) — 1/17/2008 @ 8:56 amNo, stef…the problem comes when an opinion is designed to influence others….and that is when we as readers need to know what is influencing that opinion.
Also, whether or not he believes in the brief he is filing, HER opinion in the article influences others to believe in his brief….which leads to the conflict of interest….
reff (bff229) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:03 amWill everyone stop trying to influence stef’s predetermined conclusion. It only upsets her.
Who cares if Greenhouse’s spouse got paid for his amicus brief, was only a signatory, or will gain notoriety and additional clients from it. Don’t you all understand, in stef’s world, it just doesn’t matter.
daleyrocks (906622) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:12 amd-rocks….so true….but, then, when someone actually tries to be open about their opinions, and doesn’t do what Greenhouse does, leftists like stef go out of the way to prove they were influening/influenced others….
like blah is on another thread….
reff (bff229) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:16 am“No, stef…the problem comes when an opinion is designed to influence others….and that is when we as readers need to know what is influencing that opinion.”
That means reporters should be disclosing theirs and their husband’s religions. I think thats silly. I think her husband’s opinions aren’t a problem. Interests are.
Y’all think amicus means much more than it does.
stef (48e229) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:58 amStef, that would only be true if the brief, or the article, were relevant to the religion of the writer/lawyer. Since it is not relevant in this case, young are simply trying to simply change the subject to meet some need to argue.
And, no, I don’t think the amicus means more than it does. I fully understand that Fred Thompson could participate in an amicus for a pro-abortion organization as a member of a law firm. However, I fully understand that Thompson also didn’t hide his beliefs against abortion before, during or after that brief was filed. In this case, Greenhouse hid her marriage info in an opinion article concerning something her husband wrote, and he also supported before, during and after the brief was filed. So, she indirectly helped his situation, as opposed to simply reporting on it.
You don’t see the conflict of interest, because you don’t want to. May the same thing happen to you one day in a case you need to go the opposite way of the prejudiced reporter’s article.
reff (99666d) — 1/17/2008 @ 9:14 pm“Stef, that would only be true if the brief, or the article, were relevant to the religion of the writer/lawyer”
So one way its relevant is if her mythology tells her some of the people in the article are lying, or some of the people in the article are going to hell.
“In this case, Greenhouse hid her marriage info in an opinion article concerning something her husband wrote, and he also supported before, during and after the brief was filed.”
But its not “hidden.” Didn’t thompson’s campaign actually deny things? Thats hiding. This? this isn’t hiding. Everyone acted in public and under their own names.
“May the same thing happen to you one day in a case you need to go the opposite way of the prejudiced reporter’s article.”
The article came out after the case was decided. I don’t see how it influenced the judges. I don’t see how the NYT influences the judges at all, other than give some of the freaks visions of gay persecution.
stef (308782) — 1/18/2008 @ 5:11 amThis is why most people think lawyers are untrustworthy. Stef sounds like she has a career teaching legal ethics in her future, that particular field seems to be full of lawyers with difficulty understanding simple ethics and morality.
martin (d3fe32) — 1/18/2008 @ 6:18 am73, Martin, “Legal Ethics” is a oxymoron.
PCD (5c49b0) — 1/18/2008 @ 6:24 am“Stef sounds like she has a career teaching legal ethics in her future, that particular field seems to be full of lawyers with difficulty understanding simple ethics and morality.”
How many experts / practitioners in legal ethics have you met? Your statement goes against all the ones I have ever heard of.
Also, she’s not a lawyer. She’s a reporter. HUGE difference in the ethical needs. Much lawyers’ ethics exist because of the judicial system.
“73, Martin, “Legal Ethics” is a oxymoron.”
And Nifong wasn’t disbarred. Sure.
stef (1bf27e) — 1/18/2008 @ 6:38 amIf you took this same example, and changed the journalist to a conservative, and her husband filed a pro-life amicus brief, the left would be shrieking about the rightwing takeover of the MSM.
The whole religion thing is stef flinging feces against the wall, seeing what wil stick. It is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
We need more ethical lawyers like Patterico, WLS, Beldar, etc … the ones like stef form the negative sterotypes that many people so easily accept.
JD (75f5c3) — 1/18/2008 @ 7:15 am“If you took this same example, and changed the journalist to a conservative, and her husband filed a pro-life amicus brief, the left would be shrieking about the rightwing takeover of the MSM.”
And I still wouldn’f find a conflict.
Look, Scalia ruled. Actually ruled — not amicus, not reported, not represented — on a case involving a friend. That wasn’t a conflict.
“The whole religion thing is stef flinging feces against the wall, seeing what wil stick. ”
I’m actually saying that lots of these arguments are feces. And it actually did stick with someone! If the point is her and her husband’s opinions, religion is going to matter a lot. And that is silly.
stef (57aa5a) — 1/18/2008 @ 10:36 amThe New York Times’ Public Editor has responded. Here’s the short version: “We goofed but Ed Whelan is a partisan bully.”
DRJ (517d26) — 1/20/2008 @ 8:28 pm“Also, she’s not a lawyer. She’s a reporter. HUGE difference in the ethical needs”
Yeah, the only group of lying POS worse than Lawyers would be journalists. As Eskimo have 30 words for snow, because snow is such an important part of their daily lives, lawyers have about 30 words for “lie”, all of which are designed to obfuscate the dishonesty that they practice daily. Journalists, thanks to the missapplication of the 1st amendment, don’t even need the lawyerly trick, they can just lie like hell, claim “confidential sources” or else just claim nothing, and let their lawyers do the talking for them.
So stef, you earn no points by being a reporter. I hear CBS is looking for an environmental reporter tho, no knowledge of science required. It is in their ad.
martin (d3fe32) — 1/21/2008 @ 6:19 am“As Eskimo have 30 words for snow, because snow is such an important part of their daily lives”
Thats not really true.
“So stef, you earn no points by being a reporter.”
Certainly not. There isn’t even a federal reporter’s privilge.
stef (18d87a) — 1/21/2008 @ 8:01 amYu’pik have 24 words, and they are one of several tribes.
I would think that a reporter ought to have a real degree, and maybe a minor in journalism, so that at least they have one subject that they know. Otherwise, they correct people when the reporter is the one who has no clue.
martin (02a441) — 1/21/2008 @ 5:00 pm