[CyberAnt]

I was watching Brit tonight and during the panel segment, Brit was livid at the NYT. He said that his sources told him that lawyers for the NYT were asking HOW TO BREAK THE SEAL ON THE RECORDS. Brit was so mad. Brit and Bill Sammon were both on the same page, but Ceci and "the 'splainer man" seemed to think it was okay for the lawyers to ask questions.

[spanalot]

This is a small potatos for the NY Times.

Here is a real smoking gun!

http://ucca.org/famine/gordondispatch.html

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I saw that exchange on the panel, and have been looking thru some Blogs.

Captain's Quarters has some good comments:

The Gray Lady Turns Into The National Enquirer

*********************************************

Note: This originally appeared as an update on my post about Jon Corzine and the article regarding the loan to his ex-girlfriend. I'm posting it separately instead.

Speaking of news priorities, now we know why the Paper of Record has failed to report on Air America's misappropriation of city grant monies earmarked for poor kids and Alzheimer's patients. Drudge reports that the Times would rather try to dig up dirt on the adopted children of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts:

The NEW YORK TIMES is looking into the adoption records of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate the status of adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals. ...

A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoption papers are part of the paper's "standard background check."

I didn't realize that Supreme Court appointees had to pass a New York Times "standard background check". Silly me. I thought that the Times' job was to report news, not dig up personal dirt about the adoption of minors by political figures.

*******************************************************

Snip

*******************************

UPDATE II: Brit Hume reports at his Fox blog that the Times reporters wanted to look into the sealed adoption records, and that they had no particular reason for asking:

The New York Times has been asking lawyers who specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' two adopted children.

There is no indication The Times had any evidence there was anything improper in the family's adoption of five-year-old Josie and four-year-old Jack, both born in Latin America. Sources familiar with the matter told FOX News that at least one lawyer turned the Times down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.

Well, we have anonymous sourcing, which doesn't make for a definitive statement. I'd prefer that the attorneys who heard this come forward and say exactly who did the asking. If the Times has asked attorneys to find a legal way to do something unethical and downright despicable, then we should hear who at the Times has made those calls.

That being said, since Bill Keller and his staff have already admitted to making inquiries about the adoptions despite having no cause to suspect anything unusual about them, then this has some credibility. If true, it demonstrates an even lower moral and ethical standard at the Times than previously suspected. One of my commenters may have been right to scold me about my comparison of the Gray Lady to the National Enquirer; that may be unfair to the latter.