home

Jeffrey Rosen on Sotomayor

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon May 04, 2009 at 07:44:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

To join the chorus, Jeffrey Rosen should be ashamed. It's one thing to misjudge badly on Roberts and Alito (yes, Rosen was a supporter of both "moderates"), but to write a hatchet job on Judge Sonia Sotomayor without even having read her opinions in any depth? Disgraceful

Of course, The New Republic has been an embarrassment for some time now.

Speaking for me only

< FCC Fine For Janet Jackson Exposure Still Unresolved | Northwestern Frees Another Innocent Inmate >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Jeffrey Rosen on Sotomayor | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Why oh why must the (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:11:03 PM EST
    alleged "frontrunner" have been raised Catholic?

    Is she a "practicing" Catholic? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by nycstray on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:22:34 PM EST
    I've met many who were raised Catholic, but . . . .   ;)

    Lordy, some of the comments to the "article" were pretty depressing in language and tone. And I dare say a white male would not have gotten them. Heck, for some, just male would have gotten them a pass . . . . {sigh}

     

    Parent

    I will never forget Roberts' mother (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:36:25 PM EST
    being asked if he was pro-life.  She sd., of course, he was raised Catholic.  

    Parent
    As I recall (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Steve M on Tue May 05, 2009 at 12:00:25 AM EST
    that was actually Alito's mother.

    Parent
    "I will never forget." You are right! (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Tue May 05, 2009 at 12:20:19 AM EST
    NYT

    Parent
    {note to self . . . .} (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Tue May 05, 2009 at 12:28:12 AM EST
    { . . . you have a very bad memory}

    * this is to me not you :)

    Parent

    My heart sank at that one. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:14:17 PM EST
    Good grief.

    Parent
    Hey! (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:49:09 AM EST
    Many practicing Catholics in this country (actually, a majority, I believe) are pro-choice and support the use of birth control.  Just because 4 of the 5 on the SC don't seem to feel that way, do not paint a broad brush to the rest of us!

    Parent
    Quite right, of course. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oldpro on Tue May 05, 2009 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    But the odds aren't favorable.  And patriarchal religions, beliefs, families are not favorable to women and girls as equal beings, much less equal citizens.  Think Lilly Ledbetter, for instance.

    As a recovering Catholic (you never quite do get over that early guilt trip) I'd prefer an atheist, or at least a Uniterian or Friend.

    Parent

    TNR? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Joelarama on Mon May 04, 2009 at 11:20:39 PM EST
    Irrelevant.  Their own doing.
    That was a terrible article, which (none / 0) (#1)
    by Anne on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:10:18 PM EST
    because it mostly sounded like a bunch of men gone catty, made it hard to glean anything of substance from it.

    Susie Madrak had a post up yesterday that linked to this NYT story about one of Sotomayor's rulings, as part of a three-judge panel:

    Wall Street banks, accused of manipulating the prices of initial public offerings of technology companies during the market boom of the late 1990s and cheating small investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars, will not have to face a huge securities class-action lawsuit, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday.

    [snip]

    Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan said the federal judge overseeing the lawsuit had erred in granting class-action status to six "focus cases" out of 310 consolidated class actions that claimed fraud on the part of many of the nation's largest securities underwriters.

    That means investors will probably have to pursue their claims individually, in some cases perhaps through arbitration, lawyers involved in the case said.

    Now, I know nothing about whether this was a good ruling or not - I suppose it was raised in light of what is going on with the banks and Wall Street, so maybe the lawyers here have an opinion.

    My point, I guess, is that it seems fair to critique Sotomayor's rulings, but beneath contempt to pick at her style - unless this is ladies figure skating, it might be nice if people like Rosen could stick to substance, eh?

    To be honest (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:13:51 PM EST
    Rosen;s view on any potential nominee are worth less than nothing to me. the man is utterly bereft of judgment on these things.

    I am condemning the journalism.

    Parent

    The 'journalism' is (none / 0) (#3)
    by oldpro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:27:13 PM EST
    malarky.

    "...word on the street" and maninly quotes from the clerks of other judges!

    Jeez Louise.  I'm not a lawyer but this is just blather.

    Reminds me of Jason Robards comment to the social worker who came to investigate Nick's family situation in "A Thousand Clowns."  Nick's absentee mother was explained by Robards as communicating mostly by rumor.

    Not unlike Rosen.

    Parent

    Even if I didn't know who had written (none / 0) (#37)
    by Anne on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:19:04 PM EST
    the article, I would have recognized it as bad journalism - not really sure I could even go so far as to label it jounalism at all.

    Sotomayor may not be, in fact, all that she is being cracked up to be in some quarters, but articles like this do not add anything to a substantive discussion one way or the other.

    One thing's for sure - I won't be reading Rosen again anytime soon.

    Parent

    It's about reasoning, not 'style' (none / 0) (#23)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:28:27 PM EST
    There's more to a ruling than the ruling. Especially at higher appellate levels, the reasoning behind a ruling marks out the future trajectory of case law, doctrine and counter-attack.

    A sharply-reasoned dissent may have more ongoing effect than a murky majority opinion. It may even send the losing faction a clear "press here" signal.

    Parent

    Your comment (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:31:00 PM EST
    is an unintended condemnation of Rosen's piece in my view.

    Parent
    sorry to change your title (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:31:56 PM EST
    But the other was a personal insult. I'm not blogging due to prepping for a hearing tomorrow so I just changed it.

    It was a fact (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:50:10 PM EST
    But it is your site of course.

    Rosen embarassed himself. Your changing the title does not change that fact.

    Parent

    Not bad at all (none / 0) (#5)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:45:06 PM EST
    Rosen's piece is a sampling of opinion ranging from highly positive to moderately negative. It highlights some angles that bear looking into ... and nothing like the oppo ammo a Jeff Sessions will bring to the hearing room.

    It does not - as Brad De Long claims - go on record in opposition.

    Not much to see here.

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:07:08 PM EST
    It doesn't go on record in opposition? It's titled "The Case Against Sotomayor" and subtitled "Indictments of Obama's front-runner to replace Souter!"

    I mean, Rosen attempts to excuse himself by claiming to be doing Obama a favor to bring all these anonymous "behind the scenes" judgments and statements (and you're right, some are good and some bad) to light. But it just doesn't pass the laugh test as an analysis.

    I'll say that perhaps the title was added on by an editor. It seems out of place. So, if that was the case I still think Rosen's piece was superfluous but was perhaps not designed to be particularly hard-hitting in the first place.

    Parent

    Stating a case does not constitute ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:17:26 PM EST
    ... adopting its conclusion. Most everyone here knows that, right?

    That said, the headline ill-suits the text in any event, and was probably not Rosen's doing.

    Parent

    Right... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:21:42 PM EST
    ...you can state something without agreeing with it. But headlines are not meaningless in journalism. Most everyone knows that, too.

    As far as the seeming mismatch between the headline and body, yes, as I said that seems strange and hints at the involvement of an editor. But who knows.

    Parent

    Headlines are always, always (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:26:31 PM EST
    written by editors, not the writers.  Long story, but there are various technical reasons for it.  Writers may sometimes suggest headlines and those suggestions may sometimes be taking, but writers do not get to choose.  Editors write the headlines.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:29:33 PM EST
    the article itself is atrocious.

    BTW, the "technical" reasons are it is the editor's job to write the headline.

    I know this from my own experiences in journalism.

    Parent

    Um, no (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 05, 2009 at 06:55:00 AM EST
    The "technical reasons" are that the editors, not the writers, are responsible often for layout, or for filling in the bits and pieces that go in the layout put together by the design/art/layout people, which, frankly, you can't rely on writers to do in a timely manner-- another "technical reason."

    IOW, it's basically impossible in most publications for writers to do more than suggest a possible headline, and in many cases they aren't even invited to do that.  In most cases, maybe all, they get no chance to approve the headline and see it for the first time only when the piece has been published.

    Headline writing, a bit like advertising copy writing, is also a bit of an art, and it requires a very different mental process.

    For folks who are unfamiliar with publishing, the ads that come in are typically placed on the pages first, then the articles are "pasted" in.  It never all fits precisely, so copy has to be trimmed from this or that piece at the last minute, and small bits added -- typically "call quotes" -- to other pieces.

    Then there are photos, diagrams, art or sidebar pieces that go along with the articles, which also require captions and credit lines.

    Headlines then have to fit in the space available, also frequently shortened or lengthened somewhere in the process even after they've been tentatively put in as the pages and the book as a whole get filled in.

    It's a big scramble at the last minute even for a monthly.  Worse for a weekly, and daily papers it's madness.  Computerization has helped a lot, but it's still pretty crazy.

    Note: I'm pointing all this out to make absolutely zero substantive point about the Rosen piece but because it's a very, very common misconception among readers that the the writers are responsible for the headlines and are to blame for nasty or deceptive ones.  They are not.  There are many places in the process where a headline can get screwed up or altered, and nobody gets more p***ed off about it than the writers.

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 05, 2009 at 07:19:04 AM EST
    The writer could do it on the spot. There is no "trvhnical reason/"

    Having been there when a newspaper was put to bed (and run on the press for that matter) countless times in my life, I know of what I speak.

    Parent

    What 's your argument? (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 05, 2009 at 11:10:19 AM EST
    that editors are mean and power-hungry and that's why writers don't get to write the headlines themselves?

    They really could not in today's morning papers.  Majority of writers/reporters are either gone for the day or working on another story, etc., and not even available at the point when the headline is fitted in in final form.  In any case, there is rarely the luxury of time available, never mind the stomach, to round up the writer, consult with them, never mind argue about the wording of the headline.  It's the desk editor's job to be able to dash out pithy, succinct, accurate headlines quickly for stories to fit whatever space is available.  Writers simply get in the way of that process.

    As for magazines, I've worked for a very large weekly newsmagazine and been editor of several monthly trade journals, and in no case were writers consulted about headlines, never mind allowed to or expected to write them themselves.  I don't say it never, ever happens, but it's rare.

    You can fixate on the word "technical" if you want, but the fact remains that the way newspapers and magazines are put out is a process that simply doesn't have room for writers/reporters to get involved in headline writing the vast majority of the time.  I wouldn't have thought folks here would find the technic--- er, um, ah-- procedural details of publishing interesting enough to go into this much detail on it, so I used the closest shorthand available.

    The point being that it's not even optional whether the writer does the headline or not.  They rarely get involved in it because the way publications are finished up to go to press makes it impossible just in practical terms in most cases.

    Speaking as an editor, of course, writers are like operatic tenors-- utterly essential, great at their jobs, sometimes even great artists, but insecure, temperamental pains in the neck. :-)

    Parent

    Of course not (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 05, 2009 at 11:15:04 AM EST
    My "argument", such as it was, was to correct your misstatement that there were "technical reasons" why writers do not write their headlines.

    There are no such reasons. The write could of course write the headline given all the constraints you properly identify.

    It just is not done that way.

    TO be clear, in this war of pedantics, you won. you were more pedantic than I was.

    Parent

    And this is just false (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 05, 2009 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    "The point being that it's not even optional whether the writer does the headline or not.  They rarely get involved in it because the way publications are finished up to go to press makes it impossible just in practical terms in most cases."

    This is just false and nonsensical. Have you ever heard of a phone? An e-mail? Etc?

    Of course it is perfectly possible and it is just plain silly to say otherwise.

    You know how i Know? Because I got on a phone on more than one occasion with a writer and worked through a headline for their story.

    And this in the 1990s, when phones were still a novelty.


    Parent

    By the by (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 05, 2009 at 07:19:50 AM EST
    The article is online only at this time.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:41:49 PM EST
    Writers may sometimes suggest headlines and those suggestions may sometimes be taking, but writers do not get to choose.

    Exactly. Did Rosen suggest the wording/general tone of the headline or did the editor just completely make one up and stick it in there. I wish I hadn't brought up this whole point because it's meaningless and doesn't matter, yet it's one of those things that gets commented on for some reason.

    Parent

    I always heard/read headline writers (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:05:56 PM EST
    write the headlines.

    No segue:  the one positive review of the Judge gets a pronoun:  female.  The negative reviews:  can't tell the gender of the source.

    Parent

    oculus, 4 grafs are devoted to praise (none / 0) (#38)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:21:05 PM EST
    ... and these include two quotations presented as first-person verbatim.

    4 grafs are devoted to reservations, including one quotation presented as first-person verbatim.

    An inconclusive closing follows: "the president should obviously satisfy himself that he has a complete picture".

    What are we to conclude from the distribution of gender pronouns?

    Parent

    I only spot one pronoun revealing the (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:35:43 PM EST
    gender of the source.  

    Parent
    This is nonsense (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:24:12 PM EST
    the title fit the article.

    Rosen's disingenuous disclaimer at the end just sealed the deal as to why it was horrendous journalism.

    The piece was an embarassment and a disgrace irrespective of the title.

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:27:46 PM EST
    when in fact Rosen actually DOES research an actual story on Sotomayor which includes the most basic of journalistic and provides us with his opinion on Sotomayor, it will be more than fair to remind people that Jeff Rosen told us what a wonderful moderate jurist John Roberts was.

    Remember that about the main legal writer at Daily Kos these days as well.

    The Media is asked to be accountable for their actions and opinion during the run up to the Iraq War. So to should others.

    Parent

    Have no idea who their main legal writer is (none / 0) (#32)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:00:48 PM EST
    ... these days.

    I do know more than one member of the Bar writing for dKos has pronounced me fair game, and openly declared his willingness to tell any lie and defend any lie told against me.

    On long experience, I tend not to prowl the great orange halls when I'm looking for exemplars of journalism, reasoning, or ethics.

    Parent

    No idea who their main legal writer is (none / 0) (#33)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:02:46 PM EST
    ... these days.

    I do know more than one member of the Bar writing for dKos has pronounced me fair game, and openly declared his willingness to tell any lie and defend any lie told against me.

    On long experience, I tend not to prowl the great orange halls when I'm looking for exemplars of journalism, reasoning, or ethics.

    Parent

    It wants me to write a subject. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:34:31 PM EST
    (a) There are certain passages in the article which can be either as positives or backhanded compliments. This particular report in the series (Rosen all but promises to write more!) seemed ill-suited to bear the headline "The Case Against Sotomayor: Indictments of Obama's front-runner to replace Souter," as nothing rose to the level of an "indictment" and it presented no real "case" against her except a few anonymous folks saying that she's full of herself and not very smart. I see a disconnect between the title and the body. If you don't, well, I don't see a disagreement on that as something worth talking about further, it's not important. Because:

    (b) Even if an editor stuck that title there it doesn't change the fact that it read like a long series of blind items that had the name filled in. The title's origin is irrelevant because we do know exactly who wrote the "report" and what it consisted of.

    Parent

    you are better than this Ron (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:51:00 PM EST
    It is hatchet job journalism. You know it is.

    Parent
    You are not better than ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:01:02 PM EST
    .... telling me what I really think, and accusing me of spouting something else???

    Parent
    I was telling you (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    I thought better of you than your defense of that hatchet job.

    Apparently, I was wrong to express that thought.

    Consider it withdrawn.

    Parent

    Ron! It's a GOSSIP column... (none / 0) (#8)
    by oldpro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 08:51:25 PM EST
    about a serious jurist being touted for a serious appointment.  Maybe he could have bothered to read up on her opinions and ventured something of substance?

    Just a thought.

    And how the heck are ya?

    Parent

    It would work better as a series of blind items... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Addison on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:09:26 PM EST
    ITEM:

    What spicy potential nominee has an "inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments," even though her questions "aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue?"

    Word is she's a real "bully on the bench." It's not Donna Kagan!

    Parent

    Not gossip. (none / 0) (#15)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:13:56 PM EST
    Differing perspectives, including reservations -- not hatchetry -- by persons who (though anonymous) are in position to have meaningful perspectives, of the sort that will be weighed in the selection process.

    If these reservations are not substantiated in closer study of her corpus of work, nothing will come of it.

    If the central premise is correct - that she would be no match for Scalia in the argumentative equivalent of a knife fight - then it's germane to the decision.

    Rosen is under no obligation to complete an independent study of her decisions before raising this concern. Where the heck does that assertion come from?

    Of course it's gossip! (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by oldpro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:22:07 PM EST
    It's anonymous!  So how the Hell do we know whether any of the attributions come from "persons...in a position to have meaningful perspectives"?  For all I know, he made it all up.

    FWIW, I am sick to goddam death of anonymous sources used to attack people of substance and achievement.  It ticks me off no end.

    So...gossip says she's a pushy woman.  "Start spreadin' the news!"

    C'mon.

    Parent

    IF Rosen 'made it all up' ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:45:18 PM EST
    ... then vetting and analysis will not substantiate it, and it's inconsequential in the end.

    Parent
    Well, there ya go. Now, (none / 0) (#30)
    by oldpro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:49:17 PM EST
    how the Hell are ya and where've you been?

    I'm cut off from your world for the next two months...the bridge is out for repair...

    Parent

    Well, ya saved the parks, didn't you? (none / 0) (#35)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:09:56 PM EST
    Even with both hands tied behind your back?

    The older we get, the more we rely on "action at a distance".

    Something interesting developing here, none of which I can spill yet -- what a pity!

    Parent

    You are a TEASE! (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 10:25:34 PM EST
    Dammit Ron...what are you up to now?

    No kidding...action at a distance!  I didn't have to go to the capitol even once...sent my minions and email and phones worked this time.  Thanks for noticing!  Thank gawd for Majority Leader Kessler and Van de Wege...saved our bacon.

    Parent

    That is some definition of journalism (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:18:09 PM EST
    you provide there Ron.

    To each his own, you would certainly enjoy the NYPost if you lived here.

    Parent

    Yeesh (none / 0) (#29)
    by lilburro on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:48:34 PM EST
    that was like watching daytime TV.  And why is Rosen going to so much effort to make her seem like a moron?

    Sotomayor or Jeffery wants a Desoto (none / 0) (#31)
    by joze46 on Mon May 04, 2009 at 09:52:19 PM EST
    Jeffrey Rosen is an American academic and commentator on legal affairs is also listed in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    For those who find this guy disturbing is reasonable. Yikes, his mother and father are head shrinks and his wife an historian all likely yupped up the way they want their legal ease to appear. Jeffery would be a likely candidate to completely ignore the death induced by water board torture.

    For me this is the unanswered question that everyone is totally avoiding. Besides those comments are strikingly critical and serve to establish an ethics panel to take a hard look at this candidate. Perhaps that is his articles intention. It would be interesting to know if Jeffery is a hard right screw with a couple of family nuts.

    We know Bush and Company is responsible for sending detainees to secret prisons in other countries. Our CIA, with the blessings of legal ease of the Bush and his justice department claims with world wide and domestic chatter it is legal when the President says so, and when we say so too. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Yowee, yep maybe we should have a hard nose mallet slammer pissed off judge it's about time.

    Condi Rice is having a hell of time; she is all over the networks defending water boarding today. CNN, FOX, and the elegant MSNBC are in full throttle peddle to the metal, especially Rachael Maddow with that ever calm seeming loaded with insider knowledge along with Andrea Mitchell wife of former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Allen Greenspan. Please Andrea makes Martha Stewart look like a girl scout when it comes to insider knowledge privy to trillion dollar deals for the last decades roaming around freely after Allen destroyed the economy,  giving political opinions is really a joke.

    For me what was really funny was Maddow said the Obama was news dumping every Friday night after she reports that all those bailed out corporations have tax have subsidiaries all over the place by the hundreds. Even G.E. has tax haven subsidiaries gosh talk about news dumping. This off shore stuff was known by many of us years ago and now new big time news. Thanks for the timely news dump Rachael.

    Well (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 05, 2009 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    let's see. We've rewarded the trashing of women time and again so why shouldn't Sotomeyer be subject to the same treatment as far as these idiotic pundits are concerned?

    He was my Con Law II prof this past semester... (none / 0) (#53)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 05, 2009 at 10:20:35 AM EST
    ...he does tend to have strong opinions about judges.  In class he certainly doesn't come across as any sort of extremist in his views, but he'd be the first to admit misjudging Roberts based on the interview he had with him.  
    I would prefer an article that used more direct attributions and a bit less slanted, but Rosen is a stickler for solid reasoning in judicial opinions.  
    Speaking in partial defense of him, I would say he's an extremely smart guy and a very skilled law prof.  Legal journalism may not actually be his strong suit, though, based on my limited exposure to his work in that area.

    Stickler for solid reasoning (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 05, 2009 at 10:30:14 AM EST
    NOt in his legal articles. He is a joke imo.

    Parent
    Mostly what I think the problem here is... (none / 0) (#55)
    by mike in dc on Tue May 05, 2009 at 10:41:24 AM EST
    ...his admission in the final paragraph.  It totally undercuts the article...if he hasn't read enough of her opinions or spoken to enough of her supporters or detractors, then why publish the article now?  If he mostly publishes hearsay and vague criticism, then certainly it's bad journalism.  It almost seems like he was given a deadline to write this, and had to publish before he had done all his research.  Of course I'm being overly charitable, he was one of the better profs I've had so far.  

    Parent
    A good editor (none / 0) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 05, 2009 at 11:17:42 AM EST
    would have put that disclaimer/admission right at the top of the article, rather than at the bottom. A  good editor would have written a headline with a weasel word or two to indicate the superficiality to come, and/or fought for a sub-hed that would make it clear.

    It's hardly unusual for a publication to ask for a quick hit of first impressions on something like this in order to be as fast off the mark with current news as possible.  It's a bad, often prejudicial practice, IMO, but if you're going to do it, at least make it clear that's what you're doing.


    Parent

    A good editor (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 05, 2009 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    would have spiked the story.

    Parent
    I am referring to his entire body of work (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 05, 2009 at 11:22:04 AM EST
    I do not think highly of Jeffrey Rosen's work.

    Parent
    Jeffrey Rosen on Sotomayor | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment