Posted on 09/28/2006 4:39:08 PM PDT by wagglebee
NEW YORK, September 28, 2006 (LifeSIteNews.com) – The New York Times reputation for objectivity took another blow today as one of that paper’s reporters has ripped into those who would “threaten abortion rights.”
Linda Greenhouse, speaking at a Harvard University appearance this summer, complained of a “sustained assault on women’s reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism. To say that these last few years have been dispiriting is an understatement.”
Greenhouse, who received a Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of the Supreme Court, told National Public Radio (NPR) she would not be backing away from the remarks, saying, “Let the chips fall where they may.”
MSNBC reports that Greenhouse has been reprimanded by the NYT for her participation in 1989 in a large abortion rally in Washington.
NPR’s interviewer quoted Daniel Okrent, who served as the Times’ first public editor, as saying he was surprised by her remarks.
“It’s been a basic tenet of journalism ... that the reporter’s ideology (has) to be suppressed and submerged, so the reader has absolute confidence that what he or she is reading is not coloured by previous views,” he said.
The job of a public editor at a newspaper is to criticise the practices, standards and culture of the newspaper, to identify and examine critical errors and omissions, and to act as a liaison to the public.
It has long been well known, however, that the New York Times is heavily biased in favour of abortion and the full political and social program of radical feminism. The Times has been a major influence behind many of the legal changes that have transformed North American Society according to feminist ideas.
A search of the New York Times website reveals that Linda Greenhouse has covered the abortion issue in at least 138 articles since 1981 as part of her Supreme Court coverage. Many of her articles in the last 20 years have featured the fears of abortion activists that their movement has been “under threat” by various forces, particularly the “religious right.”
Okrent told NPR he had not received a single complaint of bias in Greenhouse’s
"Reproductive rights" mean you get to HAVE BABIES, not murder them.
Pro-Life Ping.
You mean a NYT 'journalist' has an agenda?
"sustained assault on women’s reproductive freedo"
I believe in "reproductive freedom." But the abortion happens AFTER the reproduction. It's amazing that they continue with this argument!
I'm simply shocked, after all this is the "paper of record."
I'm so sorry to hear that. But look at it this way: At least no one stuck scissors into your skull.
Sociopath.
I'm right with you: SHOCKED.
LOL
Of course this is no surprise! Why even write about it?
Greenhouse is just continuing in the tradition of Anna "have I mentioned abortion lately" Quinlan who wrote ad nauseum about abortion "rights". Quinlan even criticized Mo Dowd for not writing about abortion "rights" enough. Believe it or not.
She works for the NYTs … go figure!
A further answer to prayer.
I LIKE the divisions that are becoming more and more evident in our country.
Linda Greenhouse 'coming out' as she has is surprising only in that she admits her bias. It's always been there, just hidden.
I have no problem with the NYT's openly admitting their anti-American Values bias. More power to them.
In other words, Dan, one shouldn't get caught slanting the news? It would be "unprofessional" -- because the objective is to confer absolute confidence to slanted reports?
GLIB LIB CRIBS FIB, LEFTY BASE LOSES FACE
"New York Times Writer of 138 Stories on Abortion Admits Pro-Abortion Bias"
Color me surprised. NOT!
Oh, pshaw. Another of my childhood beliefs shattered. If you can't trust the NYT, who can you trust?
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.