Linda Greenhouse
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
S'ok!
Am I reading this right, that she was reprimanded in 2006 for a protest that she was involved in in 1989?
Nope, no bias here...
Wow! NY Slimes reporters with personal agendas. Who woulda thunk it?!
Still, it's good to call them on it.
Linda Greenhouse
It's also not bad for crumping up and starting the fire in the woodstove.
Just seeing a copy of the NYT makes my skin crawl.
**Linda Greenhouse**
Linda, we are praying for your conversion as a pro-choice, pro-killer, anti-baby, anti-life person.
I bet she's glad her mother didn't choose abortion!
If you have a fireplace, PLEASE be mindful that burning The New York Times indoors requires extra caution and increased ventilation, as the bias dioxide gases, BS3O2 emitted are extremely toxic and even low levels of inhalation can cause short term loss of honesty humanity and common sense. And it just plain stinks really bad.
Sunday, October 1, is the National Life Chain - hope all will find their local gathering place!
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Why would Linda Greenhouse need an abortion? It's not as though anybody would actually breed with that thing.
This is why I don't do political coverage for my newspaper. I'm sure I could suppress my ideology, but why would I want to when the opposition is full of vicious baby-killers like her?
I've done a great deal of research on this subject and the number of pregnancies that occur as the result of rape are so low, they are almost nonexistent. This is a favorite topic of the pro-death crowd, but the simple fact is that only a couple thousand abortions per year are performed on women who became pregnant as the result of rape.
GREAT POST!
Libs can't decide what they want. When I wrote about Planned Parenthood's line of Christmas cards last year, one pro-abortion reader wrote in to ask why I would bring up such a heavy subject at Christmas time. Oh wait, I was criticizing the Christmas Cards, so I guess she was being consistent after all. :)
Translation: we can't allow reporters to remove all doubt that they are biased by opening their mouths. Best to keep one's biases under wraps.
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.