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 papers 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 womens 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.
NPRs interviewer quoted Daniel Okrent, who served as the Times first public editor, as saying he was surprised by her remarks.
Its been a basic tenet of journalism ... that the reporters 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 Greenhouses
Imagine that!
May she live to see something she finds really dispiriting. That's why the next two elections are so important.
"Its been a basic tenet of journalism ... that the reporters 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."
Laugher of the day.
"The New York Times reputation for objectivity ..."
??????????????
The most surprising part of the whole story is that she survived a liberal pregnancy.
Reminds me of awhile back when, I think it was an ABC "journalist" who did lots of reporting dealing with gun control issues was revealed to be involved with anti gun ownership groups.
Pro-Life bump
We need to pray for Linda and women like her. She's obviously living with a whole lot of internalized pain and guilt on this issue. She needs to come to terms with whatever it is in her past that's causing this, and seek forgiveness. Until she does that she's going to remain a angry and unhappy person.
Speaking of greenhouse, the New York Times out to look into whoever rights the global warming propaganda pieces. There just might be a slight bit of bias on those puppies.
So this is where the Greenhouse gases come from!
I would say that printing several million unread newspapers a day that are subsequently burned produces a lot of greenhouse gases.
I had to double check this site to make certain this wasn't a joke...NYT...NPR...ideology's submerged? Really, now.
Funniest thing I've heard all day.
Or, how Dan Rather didn't "realize" he was speaking at a democrat fund raiser. No, not possible it was "bias"
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
The media biased? Nah, can't be!
Nope, I can't find any bias in that statement.
I meant to post to cpforlife.org, lol.
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.