| About | |
| Contact Us | |
| Articles | |
| Topic Index | |
| Reports | |
| Quotes | |
| On the Web | |
| Links | |
| TW Tracker | |
| Support | |
The Times' Public Lives profile continues the section's trend of promoting liberal activists with Friday's entry, "Choosing When to Be a Mother Hen." "The navy blue contraption taking up a hefty chunk of floor space inside Kelli M. Conlin's airily modern office at Naral Pro-Choice New York, a leading reproductive-rights group, is more than a piece of functional sculpture. It's the double-seat stroller she uses to wheel her 2-year-old twins around town." (Since the Times doesn't bother to spell it out, NARAL is an acronym for the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League.) "Imagine that: the woman who infuriated Gov. George E. Pataki last weekend, and continues to do so this week by denouncing him as a 'double-crosser' and a 'flip-flopper' over his decision to veto a bill that would make the so-called morning-after pill available without a prescription is a dedicated mother hen herself. Twice over." Not until the seventh paragraph does the story make its first mention of the term "abortion," and even then it's when Conlin denies NARAL is an abortion-rights group. "Ms. Conlin, 46, freckled and flushed, had heard that pregnancy, sonograms and motherhood might alter her perspective on the birth control issue -- or, as she terms it, reproductive rights. Didn't happen. Her babies came by choice, not by chance or mistake. 'It doesn't make sense to people who see us as abortion-rights activists, but to me, being pro-choice means seeing it as bigger than one issue and one position,' she says. Naral, which was formed in 1968 to repeal abortion laws and now operates in 30 states, functions on a simple premise: 'Its reason for being is to make sure every woman in this country is able to chart her reproductive destiny,' she says. 'Without that, women are not free.'" Finn then lets Conlin ludicrously claim herself to be a somewhat-faithful Catholic: "'I believe we came out on the side of the angels,' says Ms. Conlin, who still considers herself a 'semi-practicing Catholic. I am pro-choice because of my faith, and not in spite of it, and I resent it that our opponents like to create the impression that theirs is the only morality that counts.' Strong words from such a soft-looking woman." For more of Finn on Conlin, click here.
A prominent Friday Page One story from Sheryl Gay Stolberg and David Kirkpatrick, "Court Nominees Advised Group On Gay Rights -- Roberts Gave Guidance on High Court Case." It's on how revelations that Roberts aided a liberal gay rights lawsuit have dismayed some conservative groups (though whether the extent of his involvement is worthy of a front-page story remains debatable). This story broke in the Los Angeles Times yesterday, citing former Roberts' colleague Walter Smith, and the New York Times also quotes him: "Walter A. Smith, who was in charge of pro bono work at Hogan & Hartson from 1993 to 1997, and who worked extensively on the Romer case, said about a dozen lawyers at the firm assisted. He said he had little trouble recruiting Judge Roberts. 'It looked like a challenging, interesting, provocative, important case,' said Mr. Smith, who is now the executive director of the D. C. Appleseed Center, a nonpartisan public interest legal group. 'Everybody knew that, and I think he believed it was worth his time.'" But does Smith have a genuine scoop here -- or is just a way to fracture the conservative movement? The Times conveniently leaves out the liberal bent of the "nonpartisan" D.C. Appleseed Center, whose past projects have included working with the left-wing group People for the American Way, one of the leading opponents of John Roberts' nomination. "Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court nominee, gave advice to advocates for gay rights a decade ago, helping them win a landmark 1996 ruling protecting gay men and lesbians from state-sanctioned discrimination….The White House immediately sought to reassure Judge Roberts's conservative backers, telephoning prominent leaders, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, but it appeared that not all of them had been convinced." The story contains nine instances of "conservative," with only two liberal references deep in the story: "Liberal critics of Judge Roberts, however, continued to assail him on Thursday as a foe of civil rights. 'John Roberts was a key member of a right-wing policy team that waged a comprehensive assault on fundamental constitutional rights,' said Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, a liberal advocacy group, 'and that is most relevant to his qualification to be on the Supreme Court.'" More from Stolberg and Kirkpatrick here.
Cheap shot alert in John Files' Friday filing, "Pentagon Agrees to Issue Photos Of Coffins of Iraq War Dead." "Under President Bill Clinton, the policy against taking such photographs was not rigorously enforced, and Mr. Clinton took part in numerous ceremonies that honored dead service members. Under Mr. Bush, the Pentagon issued a directive in March 2003 stating that there would be no news coverage of 'deceased military personnel returning to or departing from air bases.'" The last half of that first sentence about Clinton seems totally unrelated to the story, leading one to suspect it's intended as a slam at George W. Bush, criticized in the Times for not going to soldiers' funerals, even though it's exceedingly rare for presidents to attend soldiers' funerals in wartime. Just how many "ceremonies" did Clinton attend? According to the History News Network, a total of one, a memorial service in October 2000 for the 17 sailors killed in the attack on the USS Cole (like all presidents, he's also visited the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier). To read more Files, click here.
John Kifner reports Friday from Columbus in the wake of the deaths in Iraq of several Marines based here and elsewhere in Ohio in "Confronting Their Losses, Ohio Families Are Shaken." He opens: "In tiny farming communities and the edges of gritty Rust Belt cities across central Ohio, families, neighbors and friends took in the news that 20 Marine reservists serving with units based here and in a Cleveland suburb were killed in Iraq this week with a mixture of pride in the young men's dedication and a growing unease with the war." Kifner finds several anti-war folks in Ohio: "'I could feel it,' his mother, Pam Saville, said of the moment she heard the news that the marines from Lima Company, based in Columbus, were killed. "It was something inside me. 'Brett's unit has been hit so hard recently,' Mrs. Saville said, recalling two marines killed in July and another five Ohio reservists from the same company in May. 'And at that moment,' she went on, ' I felt proud of Brett, but also angry about our country being there.' "Sitting nearby, shaking with anger and clutching her younger step-brother's dress uniform, Stephanie Finley spoke of the bravado the young marines shared. 'When I talked to him a month ago, he said he loved what he was doing,' Ms. Finley said. 'He said he would go back if he had to. 'I love my brother, and that's why I tried to talk him out of going in the Marines. I didn't want him to go to Iraq because I don't believe in what we're doing there.' And, despite Sabina's patriotic display of flags, Ms. Finley's doubts seemed shared by a number of people in the small town where nearly everyone knew Corporal Wightman." There's more criticism from a retired carpenter and a friend of the family. In all, Kifner finds four war opponents. Only deep in the story is one brief mention of a possible supporter who had "pride in what their sons had become" and one mother who opposed the war but admired her son's service in it. The text box reads: "Blending a sense of pride in local heroes with one of unease about the war." For more Kifner from Columbus, click here.
In February the Times ran a story headlined "Some Bush Foes Vote Yet Again With Their Feet: Canada or Bust," in which reporter Clifford Krauss claimed: "America is in no danger of emptying out. But even a small loss of population, many from a deep sense of political despair, is a significant event in the life of a nation that thinks of itself as a place to escape to." Well, it turns out this significant event didn't happen at all, according to a recent Reuters- report: "Canadians can put away those extra welcome mats -- it seems Americans unhappy about the result of last November's presidential election have decided to stay at home after all. In the days after President Bush won a second term, the number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site shot up sixfold, prompting speculation that unhappy Democrats would flock north. But official statistics show the number of Americans actually applying to live permanently in Canada fell in the six months after the election." Times Watch eagerly awaits the Times' follow-up on the "significant" Canadian emigration event.
A full week after the story broke, and four days after the New York Sun touted it, the New York Times has yet to touch the financial scandal at Air America involving $800,000 lent to the left-wing radio station by a Bronx youth group. The Times preferred mode when dealing with AA is cheerleading and touting host Al Franken as a Senate candidate ("Comedian for Senator? Don't Laugh"). Arizona Republic columnist Doug MacEachern wonders where the mainstream media (and the Times in particular) has been on the story.
"After Bombings, Few Signs Of Similar Attacks in U.S." -- Headline from the August 1 New York Times. "Assessments Find Threat of Suicide Attacks in U.S.” -- Headline from the August 5 New York Times.
|
Pro-Abortion Leader Actually a "Dedicated Mother Hen"
