The New York Times is proving again that the main stream media has lost all credibility and short of the obituary and want ad sections, can't be trusted for accuracy or objectivity in news - actually that's because those sections are written by readers, not reporters. Apparently NYT reporters are investigating the adoptions of Supreme Court Nomonee, John Robert's two children. I'm sure this is completely above board and normal proceedure to look into adoption records. And we have to assume that when their investigation is complete, if no dirt can be found in the issue, the Times would run a positive story on the virtues of adoption and how squeeky clean Judge Roberts and his wife are, right?
Wrong! The Times, like so much of the "MSM" is absolute garbage. How dare they try to destroy a nomonee by digging into their family lives! I'm done with the Times. No more. It actually is only an occational read anyway because I've been sick of it for years, but this sent me over the edge.
At present they are trying to backpeddle their way out of it by releasing a statement saying that investigating the adoption is part of the paper's "standard background check." Bill Borders, NYT senior editor, explains: "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."
Sorry Bill, this doesn't pass the smell test; "doing so" at all is the problem. If you have a beef with Roberts because he's a conservative, fine, just be honest and come out and say so. But to go after the adoption of young children is beyond disgusting even for the breed of liberals that have infested the Times.
7 comments:
NEWSFLASH: People in the public eye are heavily scrutinized. I've already seen Paris Hilton looking mighty green.
Today the Times reports that Roberts did pro bono work for a gay rights group and helped win a landmark decision in the culture wars. Rush Lardbaugh, a drug addict who had once consumed so much OxyContin that he stripped himself of his ability to hear, was particularly upset: "There's no question this is going to upset people on the right," Lardbaugh told his dittoheads. "There's no question the people on the right are going to say: 'Wait a minute. Wait a minute! The guy is doing pro bono work and helping gay activists?' "
...and your point is...? I know it's hard for your to fit the altruistic nature of conservatives into your narrow little stereotipic box you want us to stay in, but it's actually conservatives that are more philanthropic and giving in general, than the nasty, tight fisted libs who want to give away everyone elses talent and money, just not their own. I think it's great that Roberts uses his talent for others. Who cares if the people he helps are rump rangers. That's his choice. And theirs.
I wonder if Flyover Fraud was as equally outraged when Chimpy's 2000 South Carolina primary campaign conducted a "push poll" dealing with John McCain's adopted daughter????? I doubt it.
The push polling big dick is referring to was not found to be the responsibility of the Bush campaign, but rather done by some moronic Bush supporters acting on their own. It was discusting and was stated as such by the Bush campaign. Going after kids of any politician or public person, is completely out of bounds and should be off limits, period. Of course if it's liberals going after conservatives, it's OK. Like Roberts' children, or Bushes daughters.
Conservative Bloggers Support The Gay Judge Roberts
I would generally agree that children should be off-limit. But, I am curious about this. Reportedly, the children were adopted from Latin-America. My impression is that they look very Spanish for a typical Latin-American adoption. Perhaps it was a personal connection. Otherwise I would guess that the bidding for such anglo looking children out of Latin America would be high.
This topic bores me. How about some Cindy Sheehan coverage? She wants President Bush [spit] to explain the cause for which her son died in Iraq. Since the Administration has used at least 27 different rationales for war, Chimpy should have little problem providing one. In order to start the conversation, I'll provide disingenuousguy the current Sheehan talking points.
Post a Comment