Mia Carr, writing in the Harvard Crimson, describes one of the weirdest speeches I have read about in a long time -- a complaint that American journalists are too objective. Really. And the worst sin of all, it seems, is quoting CJLF. I'm not making this up, honest.
I have been practicing in the Supreme Court for almost three decades now, and I have followed press coverage of the Court during that time. The most biased Supreme Court reporter for any mainstream news organization, hands down, was Linda Greenhouse during the time she covered the Court for the NYT. There are worse ones for some of the "new media" outfits, but none for the old line media that claim to be straight news sources. Ms. Greenhouse regularly presented Supreme Court cases from a monotonically Politically Correct viewpoint.
Ms. Greenhouse is delivering a series of lectures at Harvard, and here is her complaint:
Most controversies, though, do not fall into either of the categories she describes. There generally are two sides, and there generally is not a scientific basis for declaring either side unquestionably wrong. So in those circumstances, is the reporter's mere personal opinion that one side is right a valid basis for giving the readers only that side? Is there something wrong with giving the readers a taste of the viewpoint from each side? Ms. Greenhouse thinks so, and guess who is her example.
I have been practicing in the Supreme Court for almost three decades now, and I have followed press coverage of the Court during that time. The most biased Supreme Court reporter for any mainstream news organization, hands down, was Linda Greenhouse during the time she covered the Court for the NYT. There are worse ones for some of the "new media" outfits, but none for the old line media that claim to be straight news sources. Ms. Greenhouse regularly presented Supreme Court cases from a monotonically Politically Correct viewpoint.
Ms. Greenhouse is delivering a series of lectures at Harvard, and here is her complaint:
In her lecture, titled "Stories," Greenhouse argued that the media's overemphasis on objectivity diminishes its ability to present issues accurately.It is true that there are some controversies where one side is completely baseless, and the antivaxx wackos are a good example. See this post. But do American journalists really present the two sides of this controversy as equally credible? Not that I have seen.* * *According to Greenhouse, an even larger problem is the use of what she calls "'he said, she said' journalism," where reporters juxtapose oppositional views, even if the issue cannot be divided neatly into two sides or if one of the views has no merit.
"Presenting two sides without further explication or context...inevitably poses a sense of balance or equivalence," Greenhouse said. She used the example of the debate over the vaccination of children, saying vaccination opponents who have no scientific basis for their claims about the danger of vaccines are often given equal voice in coverage of the topic.
Most controversies, though, do not fall into either of the categories she describes. There generally are two sides, and there generally is not a scientific basis for declaring either side unquestionably wrong. So in those circumstances, is the reporter's mere personal opinion that one side is right a valid basis for giving the readers only that side? Is there something wrong with giving the readers a taste of the viewpoint from each side? Ms. Greenhouse thinks so, and guess who is her example.
While noting the repeated use of the same sources to provide the opposing viewpoint on an issue, Greenhouse questioned the media's reliance on the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation for sourcing. "How does this small organization...manage to get quoted so frequently and paraded as the voice of law enforcement on several different subjects?" she said. "[The leader of the organization] is simply doing a job that the media desperately wants him to do."I'm not entirely sure whether the name censored from the quote is me or Michael Rushford. Given that Ms. Greenhouse's beat was the courts and I am usually the one quoted on court matters, it is probably me. It doesn't really matter, though.
Has CJLF ever been "paraded as the voice of law enforcement"? We mostly speak for ourselves, and sometimes for our clients. Occasionally a law enforcement organization or two will join one of our briefs on a particular issue, such as in Kansas v. Carr, but usually we are flying solo. We do not claim to be the voice of law enforcement, and I do not recall any news report ever portraying us as the voice of law enforcement.
Do we get quoted frequently? Yes, we do. How? Well, we have been doing this a long time, and I believe we have established a reputation with the more responsible and objective reporters as a reliable source of thoughtful commentary on criminal justice issues, especially court cases, from a law-and-order viewpoint. Is there anything wrong with that? Ms. Greenhouse seems to think so.
Are we "doing a job that the media desperately wants [us] to do"? I very much doubt that anyone is "desperate" for our comments, but I think we provide useful input. That is why even reporters whose views are contrary to ours regularly call us.
Are we a "small organization"? Yes. Is there anything wrong with quoting someone from a small organization? Of course not. Does size guarantee credibility? Of course not.
Ms. Greenhouse's complaint is just plain weird. Reporters should inform the readers of both viewpoints in controversies, particularly those with no objective right or wrong. They should seek out informed, thoughtful spokesmen for those viewpoints. If that happens to be us frequently on criminal law issues and cases, there is nothing wrong with that.
The general point she is making in my opinion is undoubtedly correct. I read far too many articles where they simply report, with no critical question, the talking points of either side of an issue. The articles don't inform and journalism too often fails in its 4th estate responsibilities because of this.
However, having followed CJLF for many years now and in full agreement with more than 95% of CJLF advocacy, that Greenhouse selects this group as an example proves Kent's point at how skewed she is regarding the center. There is no doubt in my mind that more than a mere majority of Americans would take similar positions of the CJLF of advocating for victims, providing fair, but not endless, review of criminal cases, and support the death penalty. I am certain that the majority of Americans if honestly presented with the question would limit collateral review to cases of actual innocence.
While the above surely doesn't cover everything CJLF and its representatives say or do, Greenhouse doesn't advance her point with this "evidence." I wonder how many people in the room even knew what she was talking about. Not because CJLF is not well respected but because so many journalists today don't want to hear facts against their personal policy preferences.
Kent, it seems you have really gotten to Greenhouse and this is the adult version of planting the schoolyard taunt that you have "cooties" so they won't talk to you.
Off the top of my head:
1. I'm thrilled to know that I make guest contributions to an organization whose unnamed leader "is simply doing a job that the media desperately wants him to do." I had been under the impression that the MSM would actually prefer that CJLF and (the few) like-minded organizations disappear. Ms. Greenhouse's remarks are an effort to see that, so far as reporting the conservative side of criminal law issues goes, they do exactly that. Her views are a plea for censorship lite, nothing more or less.
2. Unfortunately, the sickness may well run deeper than that. I suspect Ms. Greenhouse believes that there simply is no LEGITIMATE conservative side of these issues. Operating from that premise, of course it's a journalistic error to give any space to CJLF. It would be like giving space to views that George Bush was in on 9-11, and we all know that the NYT wouldn...........what?..........oh. Never mind.
3. Underneath it, the problem is easy to state: Kent makes fair-minded, informed and logical arguments (I like to think I sometimes do too) and, rather than deal with them honestly, the more tempting option is to make sure they see little if any of the light of day.
4. Failing a distorted truncation or a full blackout, the next best option is to de-legitimize them. Ms. Greenhouse's attempt at that is pretty lame (CJLF is "small"), but that's what the "small" reference is really about.
She's the NYT's version of BLM: Snarl, look down your entitled nose, and refuse to acknowledge there is a credible opposition. Hence your portfolio simply to shout down the other side, or scream at them that they're racist. RACIST, RACIST, RACIST!!!
Liberals used to be all for debate, and Ms. Greenhouse is all for it too -- until it dawns on her, belatedly, that she's losing. Then, like a frustrated 11 year-old, she wants to pick up her (somewhat dated) SDS Manifesto and go home. Or, better, send YOU home.
I fear Ms. Greenhouse is too uneducated (yes, I know about her fancy degrees) or simply too dull to understand that her attitude is, not merely anti-intellectual, but the Petri dish of fascism.
5. And then there's the old-fashioned and more succinctly stated problem, to wit, that Ms. Greenhouse lies. See http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2015/08/the-new-york-times-crusading-f.html
David, I agree that simply reporting each side's talking points is poor journalism, but I don't think that is Ms. Greenhouse's real point. I have edited to the post to include her theme (which I mistakenly left out of the original block quote) "the media's overemphasis on objectivity diminishes its ability to present issues accurately." Objectivity is not in any sense an inhibition to fixing the problem you note.
Admittedly I don't have the whole speech. The Crimson does not provide a link to it and provides no contact information for the reporter. In addition, my take on Ms. Greenhouse's point is colored by the way she actually reported on Supreme Court cases for so many years.
With those limitations acknowledged, I believe that she is calling for reporters to decide for themselves which viewpoint is right and simply leave the other one out. By discounting objectivity, she is calling for the further blurring of the line between reporting and advocacy, if not obliterating it altogether.
Greenhouse is execrable.