Is The NYTimes Investigating The Adoption Of SCOTUS Nominee John Robert's Kids?
Drudge Report has a flash about an investigation supposedly being conducted by the New York Times into the adoption of Josie (age 5) and Jack (age 4) Roberts by Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and his wife, Jane.
This investigation is said to be a part of the paper's "standard backgound check".
Did I miss something? Since when do newspapers conduct background checks into Supreme Court candidates? Aside from background checks being conducted six ways to Sunday by whichever adoption agency the Roberts used, it seems to me that John Roberts just finished submitting 80 pages of answers to a questionaire from the Senate Judiciary Committe and has undergone a background check by the FBI in relation to his nomination. That is their job, not the newspaper's.
Several blogs (see Michelle Malkin here, PoliPundit here and Captain's Quarters here, among others) are reporting that their readers have received back what seems to be a standard response from the NYTimes when they e-mailed to complain.
Among other statements, the response from the NYTimes reports that executive editor Bill Keller (an adoptive parent himself) won't tolerate any "gratuitous reporting" concerning the Roberts' children.
What exactly does the NYTimes consider "gratuitous"? The children are four and five. If they've even heard the word "adopted" in their young lives, they most likely are not old enough to fully understand what that means. It is not the job of the NYTimes to educate those children on their origins (it's amazing what children that age hear, even if they don't understand and even if their parents try to shield them from it). That is between John and Jill Roberts and their children, when they decide their children are old enough to understand. It is not up to the NYTimes to force the Roberts into a position where they have to discuss topics with their children that the children might not be ready for.
Now, the fact that the NYTimes is trying to assure its readership that all is not as it seems, two things stand out for me -
The initial response the NYTimes was interesting in that the first thing they mention is that "As is often the case, the Drudge Report is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened." (via Michelle Malkin). Instead of taking the high road, the NYTimes instead decides to sling a little mud at the origin of the report. Can we say me thinks they doth protest too much.
The second is this report from Anchoress that Brit Hume reported on Fox News that his sources report that the NYTimes inquired into what it would take to unseal the Roberts' adoption records (that's what I get for making dinner while Brit was on - I completely missed the report even though I had Fox on at the time)
Excuse me!?
Adoptions records are sealed for a reason and it isn't so a newspaper purporting to be the "newspaper of record" can just waltz in and rip open the seal as if what is in those records is anyone's business. The records are the business of a few select people - the judge overseeing the adoption, the lawyers involved, the Roberts and perhaps the biological parents and the children after they turn 18, depending on the laws in the locale where the adoptions were finalized. I don't see the NYTimes (or any newspaper, for that matter) on that list. Nor is Joe or Jane Q. American Public.
In other words, NYTimes - keep your nose out of places where it doesn't belong.
This investigation is said to be a part of the paper's "standard backgound check".
Did I miss something? Since when do newspapers conduct background checks into Supreme Court candidates? Aside from background checks being conducted six ways to Sunday by whichever adoption agency the Roberts used, it seems to me that John Roberts just finished submitting 80 pages of answers to a questionaire from the Senate Judiciary Committe and has undergone a background check by the FBI in relation to his nomination. That is their job, not the newspaper's.
Several blogs (see Michelle Malkin here, PoliPundit here and Captain's Quarters here, among others) are reporting that their readers have received back what seems to be a standard response from the NYTimes when they e-mailed to complain.
Among other statements, the response from the NYTimes reports that executive editor Bill Keller (an adoptive parent himself) won't tolerate any "gratuitous reporting" concerning the Roberts' children.
What exactly does the NYTimes consider "gratuitous"? The children are four and five. If they've even heard the word "adopted" in their young lives, they most likely are not old enough to fully understand what that means. It is not the job of the NYTimes to educate those children on their origins (it's amazing what children that age hear, even if they don't understand and even if their parents try to shield them from it). That is between John and Jill Roberts and their children, when they decide their children are old enough to understand. It is not up to the NYTimes to force the Roberts into a position where they have to discuss topics with their children that the children might not be ready for.
Now, the fact that the NYTimes is trying to assure its readership that all is not as it seems, two things stand out for me -
The initial response the NYTimes was interesting in that the first thing they mention is that "As is often the case, the Drudge Report is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened." (via Michelle Malkin). Instead of taking the high road, the NYTimes instead decides to sling a little mud at the origin of the report. Can we say me thinks they doth protest too much.
The second is this report from Anchoress that Brit Hume reported on Fox News that his sources report that the NYTimes inquired into what it would take to unseal the Roberts' adoption records (that's what I get for making dinner while Brit was on - I completely missed the report even though I had Fox on at the time)
Excuse me!?
Adoptions records are sealed for a reason and it isn't so a newspaper purporting to be the "newspaper of record" can just waltz in and rip open the seal as if what is in those records is anyone's business. The records are the business of a few select people - the judge overseeing the adoption, the lawyers involved, the Roberts and perhaps the biological parents and the children after they turn 18, depending on the laws in the locale where the adoptions were finalized. I don't see the NYTimes (or any newspaper, for that matter) on that list. Nor is Joe or Jane Q. American Public.
In other words, NYTimes - keep your nose out of places where it doesn't belong.
0 Comments:
<< Home