Notoriously left-wing New York Times court reporter Linda Greenhouse, famous for her 2006 rant against Republicans, "religious fundamentalism," and illegal immigration opponents has apparently learned from her mistake.
No, she hasn't decided that someone with such fervently liberal positions needs a conservative counterpart on the beat. Instead, she decided that television cameras need to be banned from her public appearances:
For Supreme Court buffs who watch C-SPAN, yesterday morning was one of disappointment. A promising panel discussion, “Covering the Court(s): Reporters on the Supreme Court Beat,” that included a bevy of court reporting superstars -- like Charles Lane from The Washington Post and Dahlia Lithwick from Slate -- was to be televised. But, at the last minute, the plug was pulled on the C-SPAN cameras because the queen bee of Supreme Court reporters, Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times refused to join the panel if the event was going to be covered by the wonky news channel.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓According to people who were there, Greenhouse walked in, took one look at the lights and the camera equipment, and, “became infuriated,” said one person who was standing near her. As Greenhouse herself told me yesterday following the event, she then gave the organizer of the panel an ultimatum. “I told her she had a choice, either she could have me on the panel speaking candidly or she could have C-SPAN there.”
Greenhouse said that she had come prepared to speak to a “room of academics.” She added, “I didn’t want to have to modulate my comments for a national audience.” [...]
Sending a C-SPAN crew is a big outlay for the low-budget network. The Vice-President of programming at C-SPAN, Terence Murphy, fired off an angry letter yesterday evening at the organization that put on the discussion, the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. “I must say, it’s perplexing as to why Ms. Greenhouse didn’t want to permit C-SPAN to cover her remarks, since our program archive lists 51 different events where we’ve covered her over the years,” wrote Murphy. “But the larger concern is why AEJMC organizers allowed Ms. Greenhouse’s view to prevail. If professors of journalism and working journalists taking part in a journalism education conference don’t stand up for open media access to public policy discussions, who will?”
Perhaps the longtime Times reporter has grown wary of too much public attention because of the bad press she received last summer after a speech she gave at Radcliffe College. Critiquing the actions of the Bush administration, she seemed to declare herself anti-war and against the pro-life movement, lamenting, among other things, the “hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism.”
C-SPAN's Murphy is right on the money. As the self-appointed "fourth branch" of government ostensibly entrusted by the public with exposing the activities of the other branches, journalists should never ban others from covering their own activities. Then again, we should hardly expect professional behavior from a SCOTUS reporter who marched in a pro-choice protest while covering abortion for her paper.
—Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Dental Work
August 10, 2007 - 12:08 ET by CaringwhiteguyWHAT AN OVERBITE!
I wonder if she cut down
August 10, 2007 - 12:10 ET by BlazerLOL cwg, I wonder if she cut down any trees on the way to her interview?
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
}}---> A cold beaverage, sir
August 10, 2007 - 12:16 ET by Cool ArrowJerry Mathers in his later years.
Nah Arrow, I think Ward
August 10, 2007 - 12:17 ET by BlazerNah Arrow, I think Ward might have just slapped this Beaver around.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
}}---> Real McCoys
August 10, 2007 - 12:25 ET by Cool ArrowAs Grandpappy Amos once said: "A woman's got a right to be homely, but she's abusin' the privilege"
C'mon you guys, don't be
August 10, 2007 - 16:50 ET by MightyMouthC'mon you guys, don't be mean.
Maybe she's having a bad Hare day.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... You sure are a
August 10, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Clear thinkerMM...
You sure are a wascilly wabbit!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
}}---> OK, MM
August 10, 2007 - 16:52 ET by Cool ArrowBut it's not even March.
Even If She Was a Babe
August 10, 2007 - 12:48 ET by CaringwhiteguyI normally find ad hominem commentary distasteful, because it's most often the tool of the left (when you can't argue the merits of your point you might as well call your opponent a racist or a homophobe). However, here I believe I've made an accurate observation. And even if Linda was a babe I would find her philosophy and her eliteist attitude repugnant.
Well if you ask me she
August 10, 2007 - 12:08 ET by BlazerWell if you ask me she was doing CSPAN, and it's viewers a favor. She definitely has a face for radio.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Face for Radio
August 10, 2007 - 12:10 ET by Cool ArrowI don't know, I used to enjoy watching Mr. Ed.
Ouch!
August 10, 2007 - 13:39 ET by nkviking75"She definitely has a face for radio."
Hey, as a radio guy myself, watch it, Blazer! ;-)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Liberals == Cowards
August 10, 2007 - 12:10 ET by LionKingNo wonder liberals promote the Cut-N-Run policy...they are afraid of their shadows, Conservatives, Fox News, and apparently, even their own words.
Freedom isn't Free!!!
C-SPAN
August 10, 2007 - 12:21 ET by ConservativeRexC-SPAN never shows any bias towards the left, they would never aquience towards any political leaning. They and the MSM agree, they are the most balanced of all media. I am equally certain Tempe is enjoying their beach view and the sounds of the pounding surf.
If I didnt have family in California
August 10, 2007 - 12:52 ET by SQL_SamI would love for California to sink into the ocean and finally have my beach from property. Could you imagine what the Dem's would do if they lost their California liberals....
"Could you imagine what
August 10, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Blazer"Could you imagine what the Dem's would do if they lost their California liberals.... "
Invade Canada, and Mexico?"
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
CA liberals don't hold the
August 10, 2007 - 13:22 ET by KhyrisCA liberals don't hold the overwhelming majority they think they do... They're just the loudest and shrillest, just like Globwarlarmists.
Just look at how we got Arny re-elected... too bad he turned out to be a RINO, but at least it shows people here DO vote for candidates with an (R) next to their name.
Now if JUST San Francisco were to fall off into the ocean.....
}}---> Big cities
August 10, 2007 - 13:26 ET by Cool ArrowThe big cities are the most likely to harbor bleeding heart liberals.
You won't find more decadent towns than Austin and Houston, but Texas is as conservative as a state is likely to get.
if JUST San Francisco
August 10, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Matthew Sheffieldwere to fall off, our good buddy Noel Sheppard would have to leave first!
Noel in SF
August 10, 2007 - 14:21 ET by LionKingOMG!!! How does he do it? I read about the crap in SF and it drives me crazy. How can a conservative keep his sanity? (Noel is conservative, right?)
Ahhhh...the self-importance
August 10, 2007 - 12:23 ET by bigtimerAhhhh...the self-importance of the pompous Greenhouse....
Typical elite leftist blow-hard with an agenda.
C-Span should be outraged.
I am not, because I would not listen to one word the leftist nit-wit has to say anyway.
Talk About ..
August 10, 2007 - 12:31 ET by mytwocentsTalk about your Greenhouse gas .... whew!
If I looked like her I'd
August 10, 2007 - 12:30 ET by djvangIf I looked like her I'd want cameras banned too.
}}---> She was on Ed Sullivan
August 10, 2007 - 12:33 ET by Cool ArrowOr maybe she's David Brynner's mom.
Bullseye Arrow! I was
August 10, 2007 - 12:36 ET by BlazerBullseye Arrow! I was trying to figure out who she looked like, and you hit the center! LMAO!
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
I Second that
August 10, 2007 - 12:40 ET by bigtimerI Second that Cool!
...lol funny...so true too!
Dead On
August 10, 2007 - 13:44 ET by mytwocentsYou are 100% correct!! ROTFLMAO
I think what galled me the
August 10, 2007 - 12:34 ET by Dan The Man 2I think what galled me the most was this comment "Greenhouse said that she had come prepared to speak to a “room of academics.” She added, “I didn’t want to have to modulate my comments for a national audience" like the normal rabble is fed one message and she and her fellow travellers another.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I'll decipher that for you.....
August 10, 2007 - 13:15 ET by SQL_Sam"Greenhouse said that she had come prepared to speak to a “room of academics.”
As everyone is aware the academics (aka colleges/universities) are PROFOUNDLY liberal. so this is what her phrase really meant:
Dem speak = "Greenhouse said that she had come prepared to speak to a “room of liberals.”
As to her next qoute:
“I didn’t want to have to modulate my comments for a national audience"
mod·u·late /ˈmɒdʒəˌleɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[moj-uh-leyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -lat·ed, -lat·ing. –verb (used with object)
1.
to regulate by or adjust to a certain measure or proportion; soften; tone down.
so this is what she really meant:
“I didn’t want to have to soften; tone down my comments for a national audience"
one must ask: why in a country with a freedom of speech, especially when this person is suppossed to be an academic, why she would have to restrict her speech at all? If what she believs is true, she should be able to back up her opinions (speech). Unless she is aware that she is the minority in her opinions (and maybe wrong in those oppinions as well). Add this to her being exposed to non-academic (non-liberal) audience she would look the fool.
in other words she wanted to be a typical liberal - bash Bush and make broad sweeping generalizations with an "academic" (liberal) audience that would never question and blindly agree in private. But to put her rantings on "nataional airwaves" would make her look like the normal moonbat she is.
And finally she is just butt ugly and only has a face for radio, that might have been it too (Doh!)
Matt, excellent weekend
August 10, 2007 - 12:36 ET by The Wicked ConservativeMatt, excellent weekend captionfest...
Why the long face greenhouse?
With a name like greenhouse, you'd think she'd be the darling of the stalinist media but she's not so appealing as a baby polar bear.
You can't save the Earth unless You're willing to make other people sacrifice. Dogbert the Green Consultant summing up the elite left.
Can't use this one unfortunately
August 10, 2007 - 12:41 ET by Matthew SheffieldIt's a file photo from an appearance she made on a PBS show a while back.
Captionfest pics must be from within the past week.
}}---> Idea Matt
August 10, 2007 - 13:06 ET by Cool ArrowCan you post a recent picture of a three toed sloth? We can make the same jokes.
Hurry, don't let it get away!!
My God, it's Monty Burn's
August 10, 2007 - 12:53 ET by Jack BauerMy God, it's Monty Burn's mom..
I'm thinking a three bagger. Not to be overly judgmental or anything.
I don't remember seeing
August 12, 2007 - 14:07 ET by fitzfongI don't remember seeing Monty Burns' mom, but I'll take your word for it. She definitely has that classic Simpsons overbite...I'd say she looks like Barney Gumball or Nelson Muntz in drag.
Two Americas?
August 10, 2007 - 13:03 ET by GalvanicGreenhouse said that she had come prepared to speak to a “room of academics.” She added, “I didn’t want to have to modulate my comments for a national audience.”
Why modulate comments for anyone, unless you have different messages for different audiences?
Another sorry example of elitism of the NY Times staff. C-SPAN ought to refrain from covering any future events in which a NT Times representative is on a panel.
Greenhouse said that she
August 10, 2007 - 13:07 ET by BlazerGreenhouse said that she had come prepared to speak to a “room of academics.”
Translation: " I had come prepared to speak in a room full of people just as, or fuglier than I am"
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
She doesn't seem to grasp
August 10, 2007 - 13:12 ET by Dave659She doesn't seem to grasp that C-SPAN isn't a commercial entertainment channel and that therefore she should not feel compelled to "modulate" her comments for its viewers.
I don't think she meant
August 10, 2007 - 13:18 ET by Matthew Sheffield"modulate." My guess is she thought "moderate."
Perhaps she was afraid that she'd say something left-wing, not realizing that it was (since, in her mind, her previous rant was a "statement of facts") and get rightfully criticized for being a left-wing hack instead of an impartial reporter.
Modulate
August 10, 2007 - 14:28 ET by nkviking75"Modulate" is correct. Here's definition #1 from the American Heritage Dictionary on Yahoo! Education:
"To adjust or adapt to a certain proportion; regulate or temper."
I suspect her choice of words reflects a tendency by people who perceive themselves to be intellectually superior to impress us with vocabulary. I also suspect she believes she's above the great unwashed masses who watch C-SPAN.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
she doesn't seem to grasp
August 10, 2007 - 13:42 ET by Free Thinkershe doesn't seem to grasp the constitution either, which for someone asked to report on the supreme court I find pretty amazing
Exactly. I would
August 10, 2007 - 20:43 ET by dahliatraversExactly.
I would characterize her as an elitist chicken.
a few more
August 10, 2007 - 13:56 ET by BeanManIf my dog looked like her, I'd shave...no, that's too bad, beauty is only skin deep but ug...no not that either...although for some reason I can't stop thinking of homemade soap.
Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell
Here's the problem...
August 10, 2007 - 14:21 ET by c5thenIt's obvious that she meant "liberal audience" when using the euphemism "academic" and didn't want to have to change her rhetoric by being nationally televised.
What should have occured was that the sponsoring group should have expressed it's disappointment that she was declining the invitation and proceeded with out her. It's obvious that the AEJMC gives far too much veto power to certain "elite" persons.
The old truism that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is 100% accurate. When journalists have the power to decide if they are allowed to be televised when talking in public, they will inevitably decide that they have the right to decide what viewpoints are allowed to be reported. At that point they cease being journalists and start to become tyrants.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Besides being the ugliest
August 10, 2007 - 16:43 ET by daveinbocaBesides being the ugliest creature in the entire corps of MSM newsies outside, this loathesome harridan replicates her external homeliness inside with her hysteric hyperbolic hyperventilating nitwittery to all and sundry about the new SCOTUS as it has been reconstituted under Judge Roberts.
Looks like a new syndrome will be alongside the BDS froth-at-the-mouth fever-swampers---RBS [Roberts Derangement Syndrome]
Do as I say....
August 10, 2007 - 18:27 ET by Army BratIf the shoe were on the other foot so to speak, the howls from the left would echo off the moon. Happy Trails...
True, she is damn ugly.
August 10, 2007 - 20:10 ET by fitzfongTrue, she is damn ugly. But is she as frightening as Medusa herself, Helen Thomas? And her coverage of the Supreme Court is akin to Mirthala Salinas' coverage of Antonio Villaraigosa.
That's an actual photograph?
August 11, 2007 - 00:52 ET by Army BratAwwww...c'mon...that's a caricature of a nerdy liberal...that's not a real photo...right? Please...Tell me I'm right. If that's for real then it's just more proof of the need for more chlorine in the gene pool.... Happy Trails...
"...she decided that
August 12, 2007 - 00:34 ET by Johnnye B"...she decided that television cameras need to be banned from her public appearances":
Thank God! Now, if Helen Thomas would be so kind!