Patterico's Pontifications

5/10/2005

Revealed: The L.A. Times‘s Deceptive Editing of Prof. Greenberg’s Filibuster Piece

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 12:06 am



I have been known to suspect L.A. Times editors of editing copy to promote their own political agenda. But it rarely gets clearer than this. [Or does it? See UPDATES.]

The other day, I harshly criticized an L.A. Times op-ed by Prof. David Greenberg, which argued that the current Democrat filibusters of judicial nominees have precedent in the alleged Republican “filibuster” of Justice Abe Fortas for the position of Chief Justice.

I was disappointed that Prof. Greenberg characterized Republicans’ concerns about Fortas’s ethics as “feigned outrage.” I found this especially disturbing, given that Prof. Greenberg failed to disclose to readers that Fortas resigned under a cloud of suspicion relating to serious ethical lapses. Prof. Greenberg’s piece also minimized the evidence supporting Republicans’ accusation that Fortas was a “crony” of LBJ’s. And I was offended by the over-the-top title of the piece: “The Republicans’ Filibuster Lie.”

It turns out that every single one of these defects in the piece was introduced by L.A. Times editors, rather than by Prof. Greenberg himself. [How do you know this? Maybe Greenberg did it himself. — Ed. Where were you five minutes ago, when I hit the “post” button?? See the UPDATE at the bottom. — Patterico] Both the title of the piece and two key paragraphs were changed to make the piece even more partisan than it had previously been. Far worse, the edits caused the piece to be significantly deceptive, in a way that the original was not.

The proof lies in a simple comparison of Prof. Greenberg’s original article (link via Pejman) to the shorter version published by the L.A. Times.

Don’t misunderstand me. I assume that Prof. Greenberg had the opportunity to review the final L.A. Times edit of his piece. If I’m right, then Prof. Greenberg bears the ultimate responsibility for allowing L.A. Times editors to insert these deceptions and half-truths into the final version of his op-ed.

Nevertheless, it is fascinating to see how they got there in the first place.

Let’s look at portions of the two pieces, side by side:

The shenanigans begin with the title of the piece:

Original Greenberg Version L.A. Times Version
“Filibustering Judicial Appointments Is Unprecedented?”

“The Republicans’ Filibuster Lie”

The L.A. Times title is far more inflammatory — and inaccurate. But if that were the only problem, I wouldn’t bother with this post. It gets much, much worse.

Four paragraphs down, L.A. Times editors systematically excise any reference to Fortas’s eventual resignation under a cloud of suspicion. The italicized portions were removed — and the bolded portions are the parts I want you to focus on:

Original Greenberg Version L.A. Times Version
This contentious new era began on June 13, 1968, when Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren decided to retire, and President Lyndon B. Johnson tapped Associate Justice Abe Fortas, his old friend and advisor, to replace him. It’s often recalled that Fortas resigned from the court because of unethical financial arrangements. That’s true, but the disclosures that hastened Fortas’s resignation didn’t surface until 1969, months after his first ordeal. And, unfortunately, the ethical crisis that forced him from the bench has overshadowed and blurred memories of the details of his confirmation battle.

This contentious new era began on June 13, 1968, when Chief Justice Earl Warren decided to retire, and President Lyndon B. Johnson tapped Associate Justice Abe Fortas, his old friend and advisor, to replace him. Possessed of a distinguished career, Fortas was amply qualified for the post. But Johnson, having forsworn reelection, was a lame duck, and Republicans saw no reason to confirm Fortas before the November election.

See what happened? Prof. Greenberg’s original references to Fortas’s resignation were all edited out from the L.A. Times version. L.A. Times editors seem hell-bent on hiding from their readers the fact that Fortas’s ethical scandals eventually led to his resignation.

And the suppression of information doesn’t end there. Compare two versions of another paragraph in the piece. Once again, the italicized portions were removed from the L.A. Times version, and the bold portions are of particular interest:

Original Greenberg Version L.A. Times Version
Fortas’s foes had various justifications for opposing him. Republican Robert Griffin of Michigan attacked the justice as the president’s “crony,” pointing to the regular counsel he continued to give Johnson after joining the Court. (For justices to advise presidents was, by 1968, a longstanding but waning tradition.) Others had a field day with the news that Fortas had earned $15,000 for leading summer seminars at American University — a real but relatively petty offense that critics inflated into a disqualifying crime. (The arrangements that later drove Fortas from the court were more severe.) Anti-Semitism may also have been at work: According to Laura Kalman’s biography of Fortas, Sen. James Eastland privately feared he “could not go back to Mississippi” if he voted to confirm a Jewish chief justice.

Fortas’ foes had various justifications for opposing him. Republican Robert Griffin of Michigan attacked the justice as the president’s “crony.” There was feigned outrage over news that he had earned $15,000 for leading summer seminars at American University — a real but petty offense that critics inflated into a disqualifying crime. There was anti-Semitism: According to Laura Kalman’s biography of Fortas, Sen. James Eastland privately feared he “could not go back to Mississippi” if he voted to confirm a Jewish chief justice.

Where to begin?

The most significant change is the deletion of yet another reference to the unethical financial arrangements that “drove Fortas from the court.” This reinforces the conclusion that the earlier deletions of similar references were no accident. L.A. Times editors simply don’t want their readers to know that Fortas resigned because of a serious ethical issue strongly resembling bribery. Any reference to that resignation has been thoroughly obliterated from the piece.

There is simply no hint of Fortas’s resignation in the final L.A. Times version of the piece. None. Prof. Greenberg mentioned the resignation in his original piece. But every single time he made any reference to it, that reference was carefully scrubbed from the final version published in the L.A. Times.

Also, note that Prof. Greenberg’s initial suggestion of anti-Semitism as a basis for Republican opposition has been transmogrified by the L.A. Times into the certainty of anti-Semitism. [UPDATE: Also, Doc Rampage notes that the anti-Semitic Senator, James Eastland, was a Democrat — something Prof. Greenberg fails to mention.]

Finally, the reader should note that, in the original piece, Prof. Greenberg offered evidence to support the Republican charge of cronyism. As I made clear in my original post about this op-ed, there is more substance to that charge than even Prof. Greenberg was willing to admit. Fortas advised LBJ about the conduct of the Vietnam War, the proper response to race riots, and secret ongoing Supreme Court deliberations. But the final version, as edited by L.A. Times editors, makes the charge of cronyism seem like pure political grandstanding.

When you add it all up, it’s clear that L.A. Times editors took a flawed piece about the Fortas “filibuster” and turned it into a masterpiece of deception. Be assured: this sort of editing occurs every day, in every section of the paper. It’s just that you don’t generally get the opportunity to see it for yourself.

Today, you do.

UPDATE: Having just hit the “post” button, I am having a nasty second thought: perhaps Prof. Greenberg made these cuts himself, to conform to The Times‘s length requirements.

It almost sounds plausible.

At times like these, I ask myself: what would Adam Cohen do? That’s right: time to write Prof. Greenberg and ask him myself!

UPDATE x2: Not that Adam Cohen would actually do that. . . .

UPDATE x3: Hmmm. A careful reading of Prof. Greenberg’s postscript to his “original” piece may well destroy my entire thesis. He refers to a “previous, shortened version of this piece” that ran in the L.A. Times. The word “previous” could mean simply “previously published.” But it may also signify that the true “original” version was the one printed in The Times — in which case, Times editors are not the ones responsible for the deceptive omissions.

Hopefully Prof. Greenberg will straighten it all out for us by responding to my e-mail inquiry.

His postscript, by the way, misses entirely the importance of the lack of precedent for filibusters of candidates with clear majority support in the Senate. That is not simply a random qualifier tacked on to make the assertion accurate. It is the whole reason the filibuster makes a difference.

Sure, there might have been a filibuster of Fortas — but if he wouldn’t have won a floor vote anyway, what difference does it make? Bush’s candidates, by contrast, would all win a floor vote. Only the Democrats’ obstructionist tactic of the filibuster is preventing them from becoming judges.

Finally, I find it ironic indeed that he accuses some Republicans of burying the inconvenient fact that Fortas was filibustered — even as his L.A. Times piece buried the inconvenient facts that Fortas resigned under a cloud, and that the anti-Semitic Senator was a Democrat.

So whose fault is it, Professor? My post initially concluded that L.A. Times editors were to blame. Now, I’m not so sure. I hope you will respond to my e-mail and clear it up for us.

17 Responses to “Revealed: The L.A. Times‘s Deceptive Editing of Prof. Greenberg’s Filibuster Piece”

  1. If I was editing your piece, I’d title it “The Times’ Filibuster Lie.” Great catch.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  2. Noting Greenberg’s comment (on the linked HNN site) that he “wrote this piece as a historian, not as a partisan” one can only conclude that the Times piece was edited without his approval.

    Otherwise, since the partisanship of the Times piece is manifest (e.g. the title), Greenberg’s assertion is false and it’s not even clear which piece was written first.

    Kevin Murphy (6a7945)

  3. Well, in an un-Adam-Cohen-like moment, I actually behaved like a “journalist” and wrote Greenberg to ask.

    Patterico (756436)

  4. losing the party
    It’s a good rule of thumb that if a newspaper has a story that makes a politician look bad and doesn’t give the party of the politician, then the politician is Democrat. I just saw a variation on this habit of losing the party.

    Doc Rampage (59ce3a)

  5. They also removed any mention of evidence of a satellite evaluation of Fortas’ career derailment, without mentioning their omission!

    See-Dubya (56ed6c)

  6. Prof Greenberg might NOT be a dolt
    Patterico, who earlier eviscerated a truly dense piece on judicial fillibusters by Prof. David Greenberg, notes some substantial discrepancies between the print and online versions of the story.

    Legal XXX (59ce3a)

  7. Judicial Filibusters: a Brief History
    Piling on, Patterico reveals a beautifully laid out expose (shades of windiff for journalists) of the LA Dog-Trainer Times. Their apparent selective editing of Professor Greenberg’s article on the history of the judicial filibuster compares with the …

    Doug Ross @ Journal (59ce3a)

  8. I expect nothing less than deception and obstructionism from the baby-killing, pro-gay marriage, pro euthanasia, pro pornography, liberal left. I’d love for these bozos to go start their own country under their insane policies and see how fast it runs itself into the ground. I’m still waiting for the Michael-Moore loving lunatics to split for Canada like they promised. Then again, I don’t expect liberal lefties to keep their promises and be objective, as their values are based upon nothing and they consistently and conceniently “forget” history when it does not serve them like Fritz Mondale recently did…

    Jonathan (c38365)

  9. Filibusters and the LAT
    Patterico is trying to figure out whether the LA Times editorial staff is to be blamed rather than the author of a recent LA Times op-ed on filibusters. Either way, it was a lousy piece.

    ProfessorBainbridge.com (af7df9)

  10. WHY COMPLAIN ABOUT A LACK OF BLOGGER ETHICS . . .
    When journalistic ethics may very well be in short supply. I don’t know who might be responsible for the differences in columns, but this is a very good catch by Patterico, and one definitely worth investigating. Will he ever get…

    Pejmanesque (2ae9b5)

  11. I commend you, my friend, on the promptness and thoroughness of your efforts to rethink, and document your rethinking, of your premise. You’ve not only modified your original post to include the possible counter-premise, and re-emailed those of your fellow bloggers whose attention you drew to the original post to draw equal attention to your update, but you’ve taken affirmative steps to find out who’s responsible for the striking and peculiar differenced between the two versions of Prof. Greenberg’s piece.

    I’ve posted my own take on the merits (or lack thereof) regarding Prof. Greenberg’s piece as a comment on his History News Network version. The Fortas nomination was sui generis in many, many ways. But to my mind, the biggest distinction is that the “filibuster” (if in fact it was one) of his nomination was not being done by, or in the name of, or under the leadership of the Senate party leaders of, either the Democratic or Republican Parties. Some of those senators may have objected to his misconduct as an Associate Justice, some (bigots like Eastland) to his Jewishness, some to his judicial philosophy. Some of the Republicans participating in the filibuster, or the larger number voting against cloture, may have been hoping to stall the nomination until after the 1968 elections, and thus may have had partisan motives. And some of those voting against cloture probably did so for reasons unrelated to the merits of the nominee, but because of their belief in unlimited debate.

    The whole Fortas nomination was a mess, in a messy, turbulent time. But the filibuster against Fortas was emphatically NOT primarily a Republican-versus-Democrat partisan dispute, as is the current blockade. Simply put, and contrary to Prof. Greenberg’s conclusion, it was not just Republicans, or primarily Republicans, or the Republican Party and its leaders, who “so masterfully deployed the filibuster in 1968.”

    Beldar (7616b3)

  12. Submitted for Your Approval
    First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…

    Watcher of Weasels (1ab5cd)

  13. Submitted for Your Approval
    First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…

    Watcher of Weasels (1ab5cd)

  14. I think the other factoid, besides the nominees having a clear majority of support at present, is that in the late ’90s when Clinton had some nominees held up in committee, THE REPUBLICANS WERE IN THE MAJORITY. They had every right to control the output of that committee; they were the majority there, and in the full senate as well.

    Never has such a small minority taken Senate rules so far out of their intent (filibuster being created for use on legislation) to force their will on the (spineless) majority.

    Dave (fec3a3)

  15. The Council Has Spoken!
    First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Bush: A Solitary Voice For Remembr…

    Watcher of Weasels (1ab5cd)

  16. The Council Has Spoken!
    First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here,  and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Bush: A Solitary Voice For Remembr…

    Watcher of Weasels (1ab5cd)

  17. […] Hugh Hewitt, has an excellent article today entitled, Old Media tries to cover the radicalism of Senate Democrats. That article does an excellent job of describing the “smoke and mirrors” of MSM, and their reasons for trying to provide a cover for their favorite political party. As for the reason to gloss over the Democrat obstructionism of the judicial nominees, he writes this: “The reason the Post and others in old media refuse to tell this story in an objective way is because it throws a harsh light on their favored party. (See Patterico for one example of how the Los Angeles Times twists the facts.) But ignoring the history doesn’t change the history (Daly Thoughts has a lot of the history) and intoning that a Republican majority blocked 60 of Clinton’s judges in committee doesn’t change the history of the filibuster. Every single story like this one should rekindle the GOP’s commitment to new media, and the Democrats despair that the press monopoly they long enjoyed is shattered beyond repair. “ […]

    Poor Country Boy Blog » Blog Archive » The Truth On Filibustering (bf8675)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0826 secs.