New York Times Erases Fine Lines (Between Opinion and Fact)
I should never, never start the day by reading the New York Times. The blatant editorializing in the news section is becoming worse with each week that passes. A graph would doubtless show a perfect correlate between President Obama’s approval ratings and the slant of the news; we could name this ratio Desperate Measures.
The line between editorializing and reporting at the New York Times, faint at best, has completely disappeared. Consider a story that ran yesterday, Sunday July 25, entitled “The Most Conservative High Court in Decades”, by Adam Liptak.
The lengthy piece claims that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts “not only moved to the right but also became the most conservative one in living memory, based on an analysis of four sets of political science data.” That sounds convincing, especially when further on Liptak cites “scholars who look at overall trends” and “widely accepted political science data” and “analyses of databases coding Supreme Court decisions.” But wait; it turns out (in paragraph 50- not often reached by even the most energetic of readers) that “scholars quarrel about some of the methodological choices made by political scientists who assign a conservative or liberal labels to Supreme Court decisions…” Furthermore, Liptak glosses over his sources. What scholars? Who carried out these studies? Astoundingly, beyond citing a database created some twenty years ago, Liptak relies on his interpretations of a few comments from Justices and of recent cases – rather than outside corroboration. (Even more interesting, in an abridged version carried in the Boston Globe, there were no sources mentioned.)
Instead, he paints a scary picture of future determinations by the court – a forecast bound to elevate the blood pressure of loyal NYT readers. Streaming out of Liptak’s fevered brain are expectations that the court is “likely to allow a greater role for religion in public life, to permit more participation by unions and corporations in elections, and to elaborate further on the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.” Liptak clearly considers these hot-button topics likely to rouse alarums; he fails to note, however, whether any cases involving such issues are actually wending their way towards the court. Instead, he stirs the pot by hypothesizing that “abortion rights are likely to be curtailed, as are affirmative action and protections for people accused of crimes.”
Ironically, after delivering this frightening prognosis, and not until the sixth (usually unread) paragraph” Liptak notes that the “shift to the right is modest.” Later on, he acknowledges that the Roberts court has issued “activist” rulings no more frequently than earlier courts. So, actually, our Temple of Justice will stand. In fact, many may conclude that the court is healthily rebalancing the leftward lurch and activist behavior of past courts.
We will never know, since the reader is given no tools to further study the matter. Not citing sources is acceptable when matters of national security are at stake. Raising red flags about the Supreme Court’s likely (and entirely hypothetical) stance on abortion, or on affirmative action, does not fall into that category. In my view, the persistent editorializing of the New York Times reporters is an embarrassment, and unprofessional in the extreme. And yes, this is an opinion piece.