New York Times Investigating Roberts Children

The watch dog journalism machine is moving into low gear today, in the background investigations of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Per Drudge:

Times

Seems the old gray lady thinks that investigating Robert’s two adoptive children and how the adoption process worked, is of importance and merit in regards to his recent nomination.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals. A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions records are part of the paper's "standard background check."

It’s standard for the NYT to investigate the children of such a nominee? Investigating children is a standard NYT process?

Seems that the MSM is really focused on the Roberts children, as we saw in a former WaPo piece that found serious fault in the manner that the children were dressed for the Roberts announcement

WaPo

I have to tell you that with this kind of standard approach and moving into the clearly off limit area of the children, the MSM is quickly moving that 28% credibility much lower. This move is significant and exposes the liberal hack media for what they are and to an all time low…….

Update

Welcome Hugh Hewitt visitors. I visit Hugh's blog daily and a couple times each day, so it's an honor to have you here, welcome.


The New York Times has basically admitted that they were conducting an "INVESTIGATION" into the Roberts children and their adoption process with their parents, Mr. & Mrs. Roberts. They confirmed this via "Letters From Editors To Blogger" that have been posted this evening on several sites. Here is the latest:

NYT Update

This action by the NYT crosses even the lowest of standards by people with little to no standards. It's agenda driven journalism that does not give a damb about what is acceptable or decent. It is completely about promoting an agenda that they crave will be embraced by the majority. Problem for them is, a majority of Americans continue to and will continue to reject this biased and agenda driven ideology. That's a very good thing...........................

Update II

Fox New and Brit Hume are reporting that the NYT is in fact investigating the Roberts children and have asked lawyers who specialize in adoption cases for advise on how they can get info from the sealed files of the children. The NYT is lying in their "Letters to Bloggers" about the scope of their INVESTIGATION in this matter..............

Fox/Hume

Update III:

Not much out there on the NYT investigation into the Roberts children. On Fox, Brit Hume has this up today on the Political Grapevine:

Fox

The New York Times said Friday it is not pursuing attempts to unseal the adoption records of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' two children. Executive editor Bill Keller — himself an adoptive parent — told the Times' public editor that "he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts's children."

This after a Times spokesman said yesterday "our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background... We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions."

For some reason the video clip ( Jim Angle did the report ) does not work, but it would appear that Fox either got a clarification from the NYT or they simply issued a direct denial of the earlier Fox report that stated the NYT was asking for legal assistance to open the sealed files.

Thursday PM, this was on the grapevine, which carried the information of the NYT asking adoption attorney's to assist in getting the sealed records opened:

Fox Earlier

So as of now it would appear that the NYT is insisting that they are not doing an investigation, with or without attorneys on the Roberts children or trying to gain access to their files/records. Time will tell if it was actually appropriate inquires or in fact the start of a investigation. I'd still like to know a whole lot more about what they were asking about in their initial inquiries and why. What exactly did they think needed to be inquired into on this matter? Kids are off base, pure and simply, 100%. Let's hope that the NYT has gotten the message loud and clear that this is not going to be tolerated. This story still smells to me.................

Other than the above, the only other MSM piece on this story is via Drudge on a Dallas Morning News article via The State:

The State

Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, herself an adoptive parent who had media intrusions into her adoptions, put a personal and I think powerful human face on this. Here is what she had to say:

Citing "simple decency," Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison demanded Friday that journalists quit poking around for details on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' adopted children. "Some boundaries should be placed on inquiries into the private lives of public figures," said Hutchison, who faced some uncomfortable questions after she adopted her son and daughter four years ago, when she was 58 and husband Ray Hutchison was 68.

If the MSM did it to Kay Bailey Hutchison, there is no reason to believe that they were not prepared to do the same to Roberts and very well may still be willing to and planning to. Hopefully they got the message loud and clear that it is not acceptable. If they still have an appetite for this grotesque fare, lets hope the appetite has been at least curbed to the point of preventing them from moving forward on it..............................

Powerpundit has a post up on a scolding from Democratic strategist Bob Beckel on Fox with Tony Snow:

Powerpundit

Update IV

Nothing really new today on the NYT investigation of the Roberts children. Drudge has up the same basic summary of Thursday through Sunday that I posted last night above:

Drudge

We shall see what next week brings on this story. Like I said, I still say it smells really bad still. There was smoke without a doubt so I say there was also lots of fire...................