Monday, August 08, 2005
NYT: Democratic Party Organ
For about the third time in a month, the New York Times has done something that makes me wish I subscribed, so I could cancel my subscription. This time it was digging into the details of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' adoption of his two children.
In the first place, adoption records are sealed by law to protect the privacy of the family involved. Whether, how and when to disclose to a child that he or she was adopted is entirely the choice of the parents. It is not the legitimate business of any media outlet, whether print, broadcast or web-based, to intrude upon this very private and personal intrafamilial relationship.
Second, if the details of how Judge Roberts adopted his children have any bearing on his qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Court, the connection is beyond my ability to see it. On the other hand, if the NYT wishes to engage in ad hominem attacks on Judge Roberts to divert the discussion away from his judicial qualifications, I can very much see why the paper would dig into this kind of information. In this case, the NYT, in my estimation, is somewhat sleazier than the National Enquirer and not too far removed from the Weekly World News.
I have said before that it is a shame that the New York Times, which once was a great paper, has sunk so low. It has gotten to the point that I can identify stories in my hometown paper that originate with the NYT news service without reading the byline. And once I confirm that the story is from the Times, I immediately discount its veracity because of the obvious leftward bias that the paper exhibits. I hope that the Times can return to the greatness that it once exhibited, but at the moment I'm rather pessimistic about its chances.
In the first place, adoption records are sealed by law to protect the privacy of the family involved. Whether, how and when to disclose to a child that he or she was adopted is entirely the choice of the parents. It is not the legitimate business of any media outlet, whether print, broadcast or web-based, to intrude upon this very private and personal intrafamilial relationship.
Second, if the details of how Judge Roberts adopted his children have any bearing on his qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Court, the connection is beyond my ability to see it. On the other hand, if the NYT wishes to engage in ad hominem attacks on Judge Roberts to divert the discussion away from his judicial qualifications, I can very much see why the paper would dig into this kind of information. In this case, the NYT, in my estimation, is somewhat sleazier than the National Enquirer and not too far removed from the Weekly World News.
I have said before that it is a shame that the New York Times, which once was a great paper, has sunk so low. It has gotten to the point that I can identify stories in my hometown paper that originate with the NYT news service without reading the byline. And once I confirm that the story is from the Times, I immediately discount its veracity because of the obvious leftward bias that the paper exhibits. I hope that the Times can return to the greatness that it once exhibited, but at the moment I'm rather pessimistic about its chances.
Comments:
Post a Comment
