Patterico's Pontifications

12/14/2007

Linda Greenhouse Busted for Failure to Disclose Conflict

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:20 am



This should be a major embarrassment for Linda Greenhouse and the New York Times. Her husband submits an amicus brief on behalf of GTMO detainees, and when they win, she gushes 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.”

Why, my husband used all those words to me just last night . . . in bed!

(Sorry for the image.)

It’s a niiiiice catch by Ed Whelan. He says he has seen no evidence that Greenhouse ever disclosed the potential conflict. I haven’t seen any such evidence either.

This should be a big story. Will it be?

It depends. Will the bright light of publicity be shined on this story?

I’m doing my part. How about you?

Pass it on.

UPDATE: The timing is ironic given this attack on the ethics of citizen journalists.

27 Responses to “Linda Greenhouse Busted for Failure to Disclose Conflict”

  1. Any bets as to how heavy the public dole out will be to attorneys for this action?

    See this is a prime example why we kill people on the battlefield! If they don’t die there then they are imprisoned there! Since it’s not like a real war and all which would indeed make them official prisoners of war.

    I say ship them all back to wherever and whatever awaits them at their home! Issue them all inflatables and a compass and fishing pole! This country has invested enough in them.

    GAWD I can’t help but wonder how many truly needy folks here could not have been helped by the expenditures of time energy and money on these wipes!

    TC (1cf350)

  2. There is a link on the Instapundit site to some gasbag former TV reporter now playing at J-school perfesser who thinks citizen ‘journalists’ need to be regulated because they are “unprofessional”.

    http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/12/12/citizened_1213.html

    ‘Nuff said.

    oldirishpig (104338)

  3. I’m doing my part, but your blog doesn’t like my trackbacks.

    See-Dubya (1fc18b)

  4. There are no ethics in the MSM, Patterico. Haven’t you learned that from your dealings with the LATimes?

    PCD (09d6a8)

  5. And we can add – albeit it’s a much less troubling act than the Greenhouse matter – Professor Jonathan Turley who has been on a number of shows opining on the issue of habeas and Gitmo.

    At the same time he is (or was; he may have stopped) representing two detainees.

    Obviously, as a commentator the standard for him is lower. But I think news organizations should inform the viewers/readers of his involvement.

    SteveMG (ca7298)

  6. It’s a good thing that we can rely on responsible, profession media like the New York Times, rather than those irresponsible citizen journalists.

    aunursa (090908)

  7. It’s funny, aunursa. I just now posted an update noting that irony, and then saw your comment.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  8. The gas bag journalism prof said that the profession had agreed on a couple of ethical principles–but that compliance with those principles was “voluntary”. Seems to me that the rate of voluntary compliance is damned low.

    And as for the hoot about “someday the bloggers will stage a fake Rodney King beating video”–how many fake massacres get reported in Iraq? How many fake photos come out of Iraq? Who does that professor clown think he’s kidding? Do the names Beauchamp, Glass et al ring a bell with the Prof? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  9. Citizen journalism is dangerous – to the “liberals” control.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  10. If Sam Adams was still around, it probably would be honestly dangerous to the corporate press.

    Al (b624ac)

  11. I think “bias” is a much better description of what’s going on in the Greenhouse case than “conflict of interest.”

    Is she biased? Yeah, just like everybody on this blog is biased, and everybody who picks up a pen to write a word about anything is biased. Everyone’s biased, and therefore disclosing bias is redundant and unnecessary. It shines through loud and clear in the way a person talks and acts.

    Does she have a conflict of interest worth noting, beyond simply being biased? I don’t see one in this case. How does her husband’s involvement in the case affect her reporting, other than perhaps making her more enthusiastic about the outcome? And how does her level of enthusiasm about the ruling really matter to the story, as long as she reports the facts right?

    Of course, to those who are unhappy about the outcome, raising a red herring like “reporter has a conflict of interest” is a lot more fun than thinking about the actual impact of the decision.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  12. I hope this costs the NEW YORK SLIMES a few more readers they realy need to suffer some losses

    krazy kagu (0a3548)

  13. Phil,

    How does her husband’s involvement in the case affect her reporting, other than perhaps making her more enthusiastic about the outcome?

    The readers cannot make that determination unless she discloses it.

    Wouldn’t a responsible journalist acknowledge the participation of her husband in the article? Particularly close to the paragraph where she’s gushing about the opinion?

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  14. She and Elspeth Reeve, wife of infamous Baghdad (Faux)Diarist, can commiserate when this story busts loose.

    Patricia (aaa977)

  15. And how does her level of enthusiasm about the ruling really matter to the story, as long as she reports the facts right?

    Phil, if this were a matter where a reporter was married to the CEO of a company who was suing another company for billions of dollars would you be willing to grant the assumption that she would “report the facts right” and merely be “enthusiastic about the outcome”?

    JVW (477e5a)

  16. Thanks for that catch, which I’ve added to my own post about the gasbag journo prof.

    Conflicts of interests are sometimes very difficult to handle. This is not one of them. Just have Greenhouse stay away from reporting on matters in which her husband is involved. What’s so complicated about that?

    Bradley J. Fikes (0aac43)

  17. JVW, your analogy doesn’t work for me because I just don’t see how anything she writes about this decision, no matter how enthusiastic she is about the result, is going to cause her to obtain any personal gain.

    That’s why I call this bias, not a conflict of interest. In this situation, she has no interest in persuading her audience that this was a wonderful decision, other than the fact that she honestly thinks it’s a wonderful decision, because she’s biased. In your analogy she’d stand to gain financially if she led the public to believe one company was better than the other.

    This situation is more like a sports reporter who is married to a football player for, say, the New England Patriots. Say she writes a glowing review of a particularly important win by the Patriots. Might she be a bit more fawning because her husband’s on the team? Sure. Does she stand to gain something personally by persuading the rest of the world that this win was a particularly impressive one? Not in any particuarly important way I can think of.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  18. You don’t think she benefits if her husband develops a reputation as someone who can contribute to a successful defense against terrorism cases? Wouldn’t it make him more attractive on the campus lecture circuit (those honoraria can be pretty significant) or as a commentator on a television network or even as lead defense counsel in a future case? Even if you discount the idea that there would be a direct financial inducement for her to pursue a certain verdict, there is always the intangible benefits of making her husband look good in the media.

    JVW (477e5a)

  19. This situation is more like a sports reporter who is married to a football player for, say, the New England Patriots. Say she writes a glowing review of a particularly important win by the Patriots. Might she be a bit more fawning because her husband’s on the team?

    The more popular the Patriots become, the more successful will be team jerseys and other New England merchandising. And the more lucrative will be the endorsement offers for the New England players.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  20. It should be an embarrassment, but they’ll shrug it off, alas. Nothing wrong — at all — with Greenhouse discoursing on the subject; it’s her beat, after all. As Patterico suggests, what’s wrong is her not prominently mentioning that her husband had submitted an amicus brief.

    Distressingly common sorts of stuff, and not the worst example I can think of. Locally, we had what appears to me to be the first defensive shooting by a permit holder since we changed our law.

    Two problems: the shootee was an offduty cop, who was engaged to a staffer at a local news station. The reporter for the news station promptly busied himself researching a traffic arrest, several years before . . .

    . . . . of the shooter? Nope.

    The shootee? Nope.

    He went on a hunting expedition into the background of prime witness to the offduty cop’s misbehavior.

    (Disclosure: I’m leaving out a lot of stuff, some of it relevant.)

    Joel Rosenberg (677e59)

  21. You are kidding right Phil? You are kidding, right?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. OK, seriously, do you guys really think that this story was a plot to convince the world that her husband is an awesome lawyer?

    If that’s really what you guys think, then fine, whatever. I certainly wasn’t persuaded of that by the story, and I don’t know of anyone who would think that.

    If she only thinks it’s a great decision because it’s a great victory for her husband, and she wants to puff up the importance of the decision to increase his notoriety, then that could be a conflict of interest, I guess. Although not a particularly harmful one at all. How does her worshipful tone create any harm?

    The slobbering slavishness of Fox News to all things neocon is equally biased — just because they support these issues from politically-related bias rather family-related bias doesn’t make them any less biased.

    You guys are acting like you’ve discovered a conspiracy. What’s the harm? Do you really think she’s going to persuade anyone that this was a great decision, against their will?

    I still think this is all sour grapes, because you guys don’t like the outcome of the case.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  23. Phil, your only answer is to deliberately miss the point and shout “Hey, Look over There! Fox News!” ??

    I guess you were not kidding ** sigh **

    SPQR (26be8b)

  24. Phil – I grant you that this is a conflict of interest. Will you grant me that the single most important trait for any teller of any factual story is credibility?

    How about if she was the wife of a chef and she gave a rave review of the restaurant at which he toiled, but did not own? Split that hair, if you please.

    Has she not sundered her credibility? Has the NYT not been similarly degraded?

    Isn’t this enough to scorn each of these?

    Ed (fa0851)

  25. How about if she was the wife of a chef and she gave a rave review of the restaurant at which he toiled, but did not own? Split that hair, if you please.

    Absolutely — I can certainly see a legitimate conflict of interest with the restaurant, because I can see what she stands to gain by misrepresenting her feelings about it.

    If she says “the food at this restaurant is wonderful,” I wonder if she’s just saying that because she wants me to eat at this restaurant, so her husband’s job is secure.

    But her rave reviews of this decision — when she says “this decision is wonderful” what is she trying to persuade me to do? Take another case to the supreme court, because it’s such a fair, unbiased institution? No. Hire her husband? No, the story doesn’t mention her husband.

    What is she going to gain? How can she deceive me into doing something that will benefit her?

    That’s what’s missing in this case that’s present in your restarant cook/reviewer analogy.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  26. Ethics in Media???
    Isn’t this something we complain about re the judicial system?
    Seems to be a symbiosis here.

    Another Drew (a28ef4)

  27. phil, unless i missed something, you still haven’t addressed the fact that the nytimes should have disclosed that the reporter’s husband was involved in the case.

    [aunursa typing with left hand — right hand is donating apheresis.]

    aunursa (8dd64c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0674 secs.