Patterico's Pontifications

2/16/2008

Greenhouse Fails to Disclose — Again

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:23 pm



Ed Whelan has the story.

33 Responses to “Greenhouse Fails to Disclose — Again”

  1. Until enough HONEST reporters and editors start complaining LOUDLY that ethicless louts like Greenhouse are ruining ALL your reputations in the Dead Tree Media, nothing is going to happen except that when you say you are a reporter or editor, the public will take it as an admission that you are a liberal liar.

    PCD (c378fd)

  2. First, I don’t understand why the Times won’t provide an online link to the reporter’s biography. Second, at this point I don’t see why the Times won’t add a disclaimer that even its public editor, Clark Hoyt, thought was appropriate. I realize Bill Keller felt he couldn’t ‘give in’ to pushy conservatives when this first came up, but how long does that work as an excuse?

    DRJ (3eda28)

  3. Simply astounding.

    The MSM continues to pull stunts like this, and wonder why readership is steadily declining.

    Paul (bcc0a7)

  4. “I have no intention of noting every article that Greenhouse writes on Boumediene. ”

    I wonder when he’ll stop.

    stef (50a951)

  5. I wonder when he’ll stop.

    I wonder when the Times will add a disclaimer.

    Paul (bcc0a7)

  6. I wonder when stef will stop shooting at the messenger.

    Old Coot (1fcc3a)

  7. “I wonder when the Times will add a disclaimer.”

    Even Whelan says its not needed anymore:

    “As I discuss in the linked post above, the record is already sufficient to enable readers to form their own judgments about her conduct, and those judgments probably won’t be materially affected by yet more instances of her failing to disclose her conflict of interest.”

    The only purpose it serves now is as cudgel.

    stef (6e6b68)

  8. Even Whelan says its not needed anymore

    So you’re siding with the argument that is, basicly “We’ve exposed her as biased enough that the paper doesn’t have to do it anymore”?

    Really?

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  9. “So you’re siding with the argument that is, basicly “We’ve exposed her as biased enough that the paper doesn’t have to do it anymore”?”

    I’m noting that Whelan doesn’t think disclosure is needed anymore. Thats not “siding.” My side is that I never thought it was needed in the first place.

    stef (eb66e0)

  10. I’m noting that Whelan doesn’t think disclosure is needed anymore.

    That paragraph means Whelan doesn’t need to add more to his already proven-beyond-a-doubt case, stef, not the Times doesn’t need to add a disclaimer.

    Gotcha.

    Paul (236e0e)

  11. Stef,

    Here are the first two paragraphs (emphasis supplied) of Ed Whelan’s comment, just to give context to your quote:

    “In today’s New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has another story involving the Boumediene case. Once again, she fails to disclose to readers that (as I detail in point 3 here) her husband and his institutional alter ego have taken part in the case.

    I have no intention of noting every article that Greenhouse writes on Boumediene. As I discuss in the linked post above, the record is already sufficient to enable readers to form their own judgments about her conduct, and those judgments probably won’t be materially affected by yet more instances of her failing to disclose her conflict of interest.”

    I read this to mean Greenhouse should disclose her conflict. Period. However, there may be enough information out there for knowledgeable readers (or perhaps just NRO/Ed Whelan readers) to know about the conflict anyway.

    In any event, I don’t think you can read those two paragraphs together and contend that Ed Whelan thinks there is no need for a Greenhouse disclosure.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  12. Pretty dishonest and weaselly of you, stef.

    Patterico (8df728)

  13. That’s an extraordinary example of taking a quote out of context to make it read the opposite of its intent, Stef.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  14. “I read this to mean Greenhouse should disclose her conflict. Period”

    He started off with that. True. But he can no longer identify a need for it.

    “Pretty dishonest and weaselly of you, stef.”

    I think its clear why he wants to push it beyond the need: he likes the cudgel. He knows nothing will change due to disclosure. Nothing but their now immaterial surrender.

    But i do think he will keep on noting failures to disclose. They’re useful to him. He’ll move on to some other complaint eventually.

    stef (a42736)

  15. But he can no longer identify a need for it.

    Wrong.

    I repeat: That paragraph means Whelan doesn’t need to add more to his already proven-beyond-a-doubt case, stef, not the Times doesn’t need to add a disclaimer.

    You do understand the difference?

    I think its clear why he wants to push it beyond the need: he likes the cudgel. He knows nothing will change due to disclosure. Nothing but their now immaterial surrender.

    With your projection skills, obviously you don’t need a Blue-Ray player.

    Paul (236e0e)

  16. “I repeat: That paragraph means Whelan doesn’t need to add more to his already proven-beyond-a-doubt case, stef, not the Times doesn’t need to add a disclaimer.”

    It says this:

    “those judgments probably won’t be materially affected by yet more instances of her failing to disclose her conflict of interest”

    Thatshim talking about the effects of more “disclosure” not his “proven-beyond-a-doubt” case.

    stef (b39392)

  17. Here’s stef’s logic. I’ll put it into a fantasy scenario where stef is the truth-teller and Whelan is the incorrect party, so stef can relate.

    Whelan makes a ridiculous argument about Linda Greenhouse. stef disputes it.

    Whelan makes the argument again. stef disputes it again.

    Whelan makes the ridiculous argument a third time. stef says: “I’m not going to dispute this ridiculous argument again. It’s pointless.”

    Ergo, Whelan’s argument is no longer ridiculous! Ipso facto!

    That fantasy scenarios makes precisely as much sense as stef’s utter distortion of Whelan’s post.

    I know all liberals aren’t this logic-challenged, but an amazingly high percentage of the ones who show up on this blog are.

    Patterico (6d326d)

  18. It says this:

    “those judgments probably won’t be materially affected by yet more instances of her failing to disclose her conflict of interest”

    Thatshim talking about the effects of more “disclosure” not his “proven-beyond-a-doubt” case.

    Nice cherrypick, stef.

    Now let’s read the entire sentence (again):

    As I discuss in the linked post above, the record is already sufficient to enable readers to form their own judgments about her conduct, and those judgments probably won’t be materially affected by yet more instances of her failing to disclose her conflict of interest.

    So why did you leave that out, stef?

    Because it refutes your point, that’s why!

    I think its time to spray your blog with illogic repellent, Patrick.

    Paul (236e0e)

  19. Andie alone must be anti-logic for three…

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  20. “So why did you leave that out, stef?”

    I included it in post 7. Yes, he thinks disclosure will not be material because of his work. I don’t quibble with that.

    stef (9ae93b)

  21. I included it in post 7.

    And you didn’t get it right then either.

    Paul (236e0e)

  22. DRJ nuked your illogical reading of Whelan’s post in #11, stef. That you continue to argue expecting a different result indicates insanity on your part.

    Paul (236e0e)

  23. stef,

    It’s crystal clear Ed is talking about readers of HIS BLOG being able to make up their own minds.

    You pretend he’s talking about readers of Greenhouse’s articles — but they don’t have the information, unless they stumbled across Whelan’s blog or Hoyt’s piece. And most readers of her articles haven’t seen either.

    It takes someone desperate to defend Greenhouse to pretend Whelan’s piece somehow concedes that Greenhouse needn’t make any further disclosures.

    But then, you strike me as someone who *is* desperate to defend Greenhouse (or, as you often call her, “Linda.”). So distorting Whelan’s plain meaning comes naturally to you.

    Patterico (332da0)

  24. stefkoshi, perhaps? or stef ellensburg?

    JVW (b03dfa)

  25. Is “stef” a sock-puppet for Mo-Do?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  26. “It’s crystal clear Ed is talking about readers of HIS BLOG being able to make up their own minds.”

    He talks about disclosure to readers, and then talks about there being enough of a record for readers to make up their own minds.

    Additionally, I think readers can make up their own minds based on greenhouse’s articles themselves, without knowing who she is married to, hates, loves, or her religion.

    I think you’re right, though, that i do take an interpretation that minimizes the problem because i have such a hard time seeing a problem here. Married couples differ in opinion often. And even if someone is to be imputed their spouse’s opinion, that still doesn’t leaves us with the fact that a person can have one opinion and still express something else professionally.

    stef (039fb1)

  27. “that still doesn’t leaves us with the fact that a person can have one opinion and still express something else professionally.”

    sorry, that should be “that still leaves us with the fact…”

    stef (a42736)

  28. stef, I’ll repeat a part of this argument that I made to you before…

    If I read a piece, and read “opinion” in it, I need to know what possible direct and blatant relationships the writer has that can bias their opinion. Not whether or not the relationships DO create the bias, but just whether or not the bias is there.

    You think that people should be able to decide without knowing where a person is coming from. That simply fails to give the reader all the information they need to make a proper judgment.

    The direct example here: she is married to a lawyer who is trying to persuade people to take a side in the argument, and she is writing in a way that can influence the same people who will take a side in the argument. How can you ever say that NOT KNOWING THAT SHE IS MARRIED TO THE LAWYER is not important to the reader? She can’t even testify in a trial of her husband, because the legal system tells us that she is influenced by his actions. If the legal system tells us she is influenced, then the chance that his opinion here influences her writings is enough for her to divulge that information EVERY TIME she writes about things he is directly involved with.

    reff (bff229)

  29. “If I read a piece, and read “opinion” in it, I need to know what possible direct and blatant relationships the writer has that can bias their opinion.”

    Why? You just read the opinion itself. Thats not enough?

    “and she is writing in a way that can influence the same people who will take a side in the argument.”

    She’s writing after the court issued its decision. Courts should not be swayed by opinion in the press.

    “She can’t even testify in a trial of her husband, because the legal system tells us that she is influenced by his actions.”

    You’ve got it all wrong. She sure can testify in his trial. She just can’t be forced to.

    stef (5bea53)

  30. I thought the marital privilege also allowed one spouse to prevent the other from testifying in some situations, but I haven’t had it come up in a case in 15 years so that may have changed.

    In any event, it seems to me that the media’s purpose isn’t to sway a judge’s decision — although judges are people so it can influence their opinions. More importantly, however, the media affects public opinion. When reporters address the way court decisions are made or the substance of those decisions, they shape the way the public views the courts and court decisions. I think Ed Whelan’s point is that the public needs to know when the reporters that analyze court opinions might have a bias or conflict.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  31. “I thought the marital privilege also allowed one spouse to prevent the other from testifying in some situations, but I haven’t had it come up in a case in 15 years so that may have changed.”

    There’s a marital confidences privilege — which either spouse can claim. Which would seem to work the other way here: We want spouses to be able to confide in each other, so we don’t force them to reveal their discussions.

    “I think Ed Whelan’s point is that the public needs to know when the reporters that analyze court opinions might have a bias or conflict.”

    I agree that that is his point.

    stef (7b3836)

  32. But Stef, the marital privilege doesn’t apply outside court. Reff’s point was that married persons influence each other and, regardless of its scope, that’s one reason we have a marital privilege. It strikes me as odd to use the marital privilege as a basis for saying that Greenhouse shouldn’t be forced to or even able to disclose her potential bias in the business world. Surely that’s not what you meant.

    DRJ (3eda28)

  33. “But Stef, the marital privilege doesn’t apply outside court.”

    I agree. I think Reff is making a silly point. But if we were to follow some lesson from the marital privilege, it would be against intruding on the information sharing in the marital relation. I agree with you that it is odd.

    stef (2b5cca)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2848 secs.