New York Times Admits Investigating Roberts Children Via Letters To Bloggers
Updates on the NYT investigation of the Roberts children via: Captains Quarters and Michelle Malkin
Both have good analysis and also "Letters To Bloggers" from the NYT Editorial staff. Those email letters to bloggers are telling in my opinion. Here is one:
via Michelle Malkin
While the public editor does not usually get involved in pre-publication matters, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts's children. He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this issue. In addition, a senior editor at the paper wrote, "In the case of Judge Roberts's family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions."..........
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has the same basic "Letters From Editors To Bloggers" that one of his readers got from the NYT. Looks like a form email template that they are pumping out as the outcry comes thundering in.
So in this Letter To Bloggers, Joe Plambeck, Office of the Public Editor and the old gray lady admits that they were "investigating" to see if there were any "IRREGULARITIES" in the Roberts adoption process. Inquires do not produce irregularities or no irregularities, investigations produce those result. That's the point and the huge issue here, that the NYT was in fact investigating these children and their relationship with Mr. & Mrs. Roberts. Proof positive via their Letters To Bloggers....................
No decent person cares why these kids were adopted, it simply does not matter in any way. The only thing that matters is that two children who needed parents have them. That's it............Putting them and their relationship with their parents under the light by a biased cesspool of activism journalism, is inexcusable.
What was the NYT trying to find? It's almost as if they thought there must be some pro-life story or insight because the Roberts adopted these children from Argentina. The pro Roe crowd in the MSM are so desperate to hang the "unfit choice" question on Roberts that they are going after his kids!!!! Lots of people adopt children from other countries every day. It's a beautiful thing for adoptive parents to do. It makes people who need each other a family and its a complete win - win. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, adoption should appeal to both and be considered a very positive resolution to an important need. Seems to me that it is the one thing that in the whole pro-life vs. pro-choice argument that everyone should be able to agree on. If you don't share that view then you are a very sick individual. So why would the NYT cross that sacred line and smear agenda slime on this beautiful institution? Because all they care about is promoting their ultra liberal agenda, pure and simple.
This is not a case of proper etiquette and standards being in place and somehow failing the NYT in this one instance. This was the product of activism journalism, that has no decency, etiquette or standards and is at the core of most MSM institutions. It an ultra liberal MSM organization showing their true colors, and crossing a very clear line to promote their agenda.
Inexcusable to the tenth degree............................................
Both have good analysis and also "Letters To Bloggers" from the NYT Editorial staff. Those email letters to bloggers are telling in my opinion. Here is one:
via Michelle Malkin
While the public editor does not usually get involved in pre-publication matters, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts's children. He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this issue. In addition, a senior editor at the paper wrote, "In the case of Judge Roberts's family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions."..........
Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters has the same basic "Letters From Editors To Bloggers" that one of his readers got from the NYT. Looks like a form email template that they are pumping out as the outcry comes thundering in.
So in this Letter To Bloggers, Joe Plambeck, Office of the Public Editor and the old gray lady admits that they were "investigating" to see if there were any "IRREGULARITIES" in the Roberts adoption process. Inquires do not produce irregularities or no irregularities, investigations produce those result. That's the point and the huge issue here, that the NYT was in fact investigating these children and their relationship with Mr. & Mrs. Roberts. Proof positive via their Letters To Bloggers....................
No decent person cares why these kids were adopted, it simply does not matter in any way. The only thing that matters is that two children who needed parents have them. That's it............Putting them and their relationship with their parents under the light by a biased cesspool of activism journalism, is inexcusable.
What was the NYT trying to find? It's almost as if they thought there must be some pro-life story or insight because the Roberts adopted these children from Argentina. The pro Roe crowd in the MSM are so desperate to hang the "unfit choice" question on Roberts that they are going after his kids!!!! Lots of people adopt children from other countries every day. It's a beautiful thing for adoptive parents to do. It makes people who need each other a family and its a complete win - win. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, adoption should appeal to both and be considered a very positive resolution to an important need. Seems to me that it is the one thing that in the whole pro-life vs. pro-choice argument that everyone should be able to agree on. If you don't share that view then you are a very sick individual. So why would the NYT cross that sacred line and smear agenda slime on this beautiful institution? Because all they care about is promoting their ultra liberal agenda, pure and simple.
This is not a case of proper etiquette and standards being in place and somehow failing the NYT in this one instance. This was the product of activism journalism, that has no decency, etiquette or standards and is at the core of most MSM institutions. It an ultra liberal MSM organization showing their true colors, and crossing a very clear line to promote their agenda.
Inexcusable to the tenth degree............................................
posted by Steve at 7:08 PM
