Posted on 01/09/2006 5:16:06 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
January 9, 2006 - 08:07
What do you think the odds are that in the very first minute of its segment on Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the morning her confirmation hearings were set to begin, the Today show twice described Ginsburg - former chief counsel of the ACLU - as a "liberal" and spoke of her confirmation "moving the court to the left"?
Yet Andrea Mitchell managed the precise mirror image in the first 60 seconds of her story on Samuel Alito this morning, twice referring to him as a "conservative" and adding that his confirmation would "move the court to the right."
And when it came to outside advocates, Today chose two anti-Alito voices [former Clinton aide Joe Lockhart and a fellow from People for the American Way], versus a sole Alito supporter - former Solicitor General Ted Olson. Today did play a 10-second clip of former GOP Rep. Vin Weber, but only for purposes of describing lobbying efforts, not to endorse Alito.
When NBC legal correspondent Pete Williams was brought in, he subtly undermined one of Alito's strongest suits. Williams said that supporters and opponents alike:
"agree he's among the nation's smartest judges, just given the ABA's highest rating."
That might lead viewers to conclude that the ABA's rating is simply a measure of a candidate's smarts. In fact, in reviewing judicial nominees, the ABA makes an overall assessment of their qualifications, specifically including their "integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament."
Then it was on to Katie Couric's interview of Tim Russert, who clearly had Alito's possible zealotry on the noggin. Twice he raised the potential problem. He first observed:
"If he comes across as a conservative politcal zealot he's in trouble,"
Russert later used Alito's potential zealotry to undercut a favorite Republican argument - the Ginsburg analogy. Said Russert:
"Republicans say Bill Clinton put liberals on the bench, why can't George Bush put conservatives on the ench. The question is, is this a conservative judge or a conservative zealot?"
Query whether when Ginsburg was up for confirmation Russert ever raised the specter of her possible liberal zealotry?
A sidenote: was Today subtly seeking to curry favor with Sen. Arlen Specter, who will be chairing the hearings? Today twice played clips of a much younger and more hirsute Specter.
A careful deconstruction might have permitted one to understand that the clips were from Clarence Thomas' 1987 hearings, but Today never made that clear. To the contrary, when they showed Specter the Young saying "this is much bigger than anything we've seen," most viewers would surely have thought this was a current clip of Specter speaking of the about-to-begin Alito hearings.
Bad news leads for the MSM.
Judge Alito = Bad news for the leftist MSM.
Thanks for the post. :-)
So good to learn from the Today Show that advocating to lower the age of consent to 12 and legalize prostitution are "middle of the road". (sarcasm off)
The word zealot also invokes images of the Taliban, Muslim extremists, theocracy, etc. It has a very religious connotation.
That film clip was probably from the 60's when he was a D.A. in Philly. LOL
Thank goodness for groups like Newsbusters. They watch the Today Show so I don't have to! You'd have to give me hazard pay to watch that show.
Zealous Today Show/NewsBusters ping.
Hopefully...
Exactly. My tag line says it all!
God I hope so!
Here's to more fretting for them. Fretting in abundance, I say. Fret!
It keeps them occupied. Idle hands are the devil's workshop.
So being General Counsel for the ACLU is not zealotry, while an admirable 15 year record on the bench is.
well, yes...
This article makes me reflect on the nuances of words and how I resolved it many years ago; the difference between zealot and fanatic. At that time I settled on a distinction that no longer creates clarity: a zealot will die for his cause; a fanatic will kill for his cause.
And then there's islam. Made a total mess of language and introduced its own twist.
The Today Show's, and Russert and Couric's bias aside, Alito's appointment WILL and NEEDS TO move the court to the right. That's the only thing they got right on the broadcast.
I'd be interested to hear anyone's take on the Today Show's interview of that kid that went to Iraq. I only saw a few seconds of it but they seemed to be making a hero out of the child.
We can only hope, we can only hope ...
Isn't that special ... the liberals are embracing their liberalism
Their problem is that Justices are suppose to follow the Constitution and not their personal feelings
Now if Andrea, Timmy and Joe can point to me where in the Constitution it says that you have a constitutional right to an abortion .. then we can have a debate
Till then ... it is obvious the liberals only want activist judges on the bench to make "new law"
The liberals got hammered for making an issue of Alito's Italian heritage
I'm thinking calling Alito, who is a catholic .. a zealot won't go over to well either
Keep talking libs
"Conservative Zealot"?
I certainly hope so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.