Abortion, NYT and Neutrality
I’ve long admired the work of Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times Supreme Court reporter, although I am hardly an expert on the subject.
But her recent speech to Radcliffe alumnae — Greenhouse is class of 1968 — strikes me as sobering. (The public editor of the Times, Byron Calame, is also critical in today’s paper, not yet on line.) It’s not simply that Greenhouse casually assumes that her listeners join her in decrying the Bush administration’s “assault on reproductive freedom.” It’s that the most powerful analyst of the Court’s decisions — at least for the vast public reached by the Times – on perhaps the most divisive legal issue faced by the court and the country, assumes that she can publicly announce her views, views strongly tilted toward one side of an agonizing national debate.
Here’s a thought experiment. I basically agree with Greenhouse’s bleak (although hardly sophisticated) assessment of the current administration and Iraq. But would Greenhouse accept a Pentagon reporter giving a public address in support of Donald Rumsfeld, and then simply returning to work?
OK, John, I don’t share her views on “reproductive freedom,” either. But do this thought experiment: You already said that you “basically agree with her bleak assessment. . .of the current administration and Iraq.” Is that neutrality? Would you be OK with someone who gave a bleak assessment of the war and then returned to work? (Example: Thomas Ricks.) I would, because I would share his or her evaluation of what’s going on. In fact, I’d add that the war is the result of a lying, duplicitous, and criminal administration. But someone who thinks that things are going just wonderfully in Iraq would object that you, I, and said journalist weren’t being “neutral.” (Should Ricks never write another word about Iraq? Should he never again address a college audience?) How would you propose to counter this? Point to the “obvious” bleakness of the situation? It sure isn’t obvious to the pro-war side.
What you’re really saying is that you don’t agree with Greenhouse about abortion. Neither do I — but I don’t assume that that translates directly into thinking her wholly untrustworthy when reporting on the issue. Are you saying that journalists should never express their views on controversial subjects? Are they forbidden to speculate about motives, make assessments of situations, offer predictions based on their experiences? Are they deprived of their rights to express opinions?
Not only does Greenhouse have the right to voice her view of this administration’s assault on reproductive freedom, the listeners and the readers (such as yourself) have the right to disagree and reject her opinion.
As you have done. And neither Greenhouse, you, or the world of journalism has suffered any harm because of it.
It doesn’t make sense to me to assume that every person who heard her speech jumped on her bandwagon without being able to think for themselves.
I realize we’re suffering a serious decline in critical thinking skills in this country, but stifling opinions (even those you don’t agree with) isn’t going to help anything.
Gene: An excellent response that does push me to rethink my own position. I may be wrong. But still: Ricks defends his view of the Iraq war through a book-length study that is more about implementation than first-order moral questions. Greenhouse simply announces her position on the subject — and indeed she was chided earlier in her career for marching in a pro-choice rally by the Times — and moves on. Certainly I want her to speak on college campuses etc. but as an expert on the history and practice of the Court, not a polemicist in the mode of Fox News. (I really do think there is a difference.) She may in fact be such a terrific reporter that her own very strongly held views will never inflect her coverage of the subject, but my respect for the Times (really) is such that I think she’s weakened its ability to be objective (not the same thing as a specious neutrality) in its news coveage of a subject of real importance.
Donna: another great response. I hope I’m not stifling opinion. But I do think having a position like the one Greenhouse holds limits anyone’s ability to opine in this way. This strikes me as less a violation of free speech than a recognition of institutional responsibility.
“I realize we’re suffering a serious decline in critical thinking skills in this country..”
This should be more bothersome than anything Greenhouse said.
I also wonder John how you quoted “assault on reproductive freedom” rather than “assault on WOMEN’S reproductive freedom?”
For whatever its worth the face of pro choice is most often women while the face of pro life is most often men. Even on these pages.
Greenhouse significantly talked about how the Boston Globe would not even give her an interview because they “were not interested in hiring women.” She then noted how women were now in executive positions in the New York Times, an advance of the last thirty years.
How many women are in leadership positions in the RCC and Evangelicals?
The Calame article is now available at the NYT webside. Unfortunately I don’t know how to link it here, but it is well worth reading.
“For whatever its worth the face of pro choice is most often women while the face of pro life is most often men.” Sad but true.
“Even on these pages.” I disagree. The most categorical pro choice face on these pages is male. The female voices are invariably more nuanced.
It is my experience that reporters often signal their opinions when they write a story. It requires great skill not to do this. My reading of Linda Greenhouse’s work is limited, but at least she seems to be knowledgeable about the Supreme Court. To ask more is to ask too much. If any one had told me she was not pro-choice, I would have been surprised, very surprised. The relevant question is whether one can see this as a distorting factor in her reporting. The gasp that greeted her public speech to Radcliffe alumnae suggests that she is very good reporter and can still be one. Otherwise what are people surprised at?
Given the cramped and defensive tone that sometimes turns up on the blog, how refreshing was the generosity of John McGreevy’s reply to critiques of his post: “Gene: An excellent response that does push me to rethink my own position” and “Donna: another great response.”
here’s the link for the Byron Calame piece mentioned by McGreevy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/opinion/08pubed.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fThe%20Public%20Editor Calame cites a Newsweek interview with Daniel Okrent, his predecessor as public editor at the Times: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15051659/site/newsweek/
Thank you, John.
Eugene asks: “Are you saying that journalists should never express their views on controversial subjects? Are they forbidden to speculate about motives, make assessments of situations, offer predictions based on their experiences? Are they deprived of their rights to express opinions?”
In a nutshell, Eugene, yes, at least insofar as their beats are concerned.
The expectation to keep your opinions to yourself about your subjects are made clear to budding young reporters in J-schools. Reporters are routinely taken off beats if they proclaim publicly their views about the issues they’re covering.
In fact, the textbook case most often cited is the reporter who covers abortion and is spotted carrying a pro-choice sign at a rally on her day off.
However, Linda Greenhouse mentions the Supreme Court only once in her speech, and that’s in talking about then-General Colin Powell and his encouraging words to a gay classmate of Greenhouse “almost 10 years to the day before the Supreme Court declared in Lawrence v. Texas that gay people are entitled to ‘dignity’ and ‘respect,’ in Justice Kennedy’s words, in the eyes of the law. ”
Greenhouse did not use the word “abortion,” nor did she link “reproductive rights” with the Supreme Court or even the Bush administration.
She said: “And let’s not forget the sustained assault on women’s reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism.”
Greenhouse might as easily have been talking about prolife groups in states that have won restrictions on abortion as the Supreme Court.
So, while Greenhouse may have assumed too much about her audience, or tipped her hand about a topic that the Supreme Court might take up in the future, I don’t see that what Greenhouse said is parallel to “a Pentagon reporter giving a public address in support of Donald Rumsfeld.”
Guidelines for the New York Times warn that journalists “should avoid expressing views that go beyond what they would be allowed to say in the paper,” according to Bill Keller. But even such a restriction isn’t very limiting since there is no shortage of opinion in the pages of the Times. A witty Michael Kinsley column explored some of the casuistry involved:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1883559,00.html
When all is said and done it’s difficult to ignore the presence of double standards. Here’s a disturbing comment from the NPR story mentioned by the NY Times public editor:
“Jack Nelson, former Washington bureau chief for The Los Angeles Times, blanches at hearing of Greenhouse’s remarks, but agrees with her tough critique of the White House.
“If I was the Washington bureau chief and she was my Supreme Court reporter, I might have to answer to the editors in L.A. for that,” Nelson says. “But I would do my best to support her.”
Asked if he would defend Greenhouse had she said something he disagreed with, however, Nelson laughed — and said he would take issue if she had backed Bush policy.”