Brit Hume Grapevine: Why Did They Look Into It? (NY Times only 'asking questions' about Roberts)

Fox News ^ | 8/05/05 | Brit Hume

[Libloather]

I believe the word on Fox News this morning is that the NY Times ISN'T doing a story on John Roberts' children because the Times found nothing 'inappropriate' with the adoptions. Mighty wide of them.

It maybe time to investigate the private lives of a few Big Media so-called journalists...

[mewzilla]

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.

I would've thought the paper's own legal eagles would've told them that. Were they asked, I wonder?

[jimbo123]

Contact NY Times Investor Relations and tell them that public companies should not act in this manner.

Paula Schwartz
Manager
Investor Relations and Online Communications
(212) 556-5224
schwap@nytimes.com

[msnimje]

A Times spokesman said the paper was simply asking questions, and that only initial inquiries had been made.

Brit said he spoke with a lawyer who was asked by the Slimes, "How do you get into SEALED adoption records?"
That is a lot more than making initial inquiries.

[beyond the sea]

A Times spokesman said the paper was simply asking questions

Ask this one of yourself, NYT: How low do you go?

[xcamel]

Maybe they backed off because Pinchy was concieved in a dumpster

[JohnLongIsland]

i wan't one of these hot shot left wing pollsters to ask the question who has more credibility the national enquirer or the ny slimes?

[leadpenny]

I'm not here to defend or speak for the NYT, but I don't see anything wrong with asking the question, "How can we legally get into sealed adoption records?"

What am I missing here? It's what reporters do.

[syriacus]

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.

Here's a shortcut for changing private information into public information...

1. Get the Democrats to insist the papers must be handed over to a select group of them..
2. Then Leahy or Rockefeller can "leak" the contents to a Times reporter

[JustDoItAlways]

NYT felt it wasn't appropriate for them to actually report on the story so they went ahead and just leaked it to Drudge knowing that the "story" would get out there.

Continuing to talk and blog about it is just playing right into their hands (which they are now wringing saying "I love it when a plan comes together.")

[syriacus]

What am I missing here?

The red faces at the NY Crimes tell the whole story.

[elli1]

I would've thought the paper's own legal eagles would've told them that. Were they asked, I wonder.

Speculating--No, they didn't ask them because they knew the answer to the question and knew they were not going to get into the records from the get-go. What they wanted was for the story that reporters were 'prying' to get out, though. An attempt to terrorize Miz Roberts into putting pressure on Mr Roberts to ask that his nomination be withdrawn???

[daybreakcoming]

What am I missing here? It's what reporters do.

Partially correct on this particular incident. It's what leftist democrat reporters do.

[leadpenny]

Do we know who gave Drudge a heads up?

[mewzilla]

What am I missing here?

That there isn't a legal way for the paper to do it.

[Piquaboy]

That slime rag is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

[Mo1]

HEY NY Slimes .... Here's a story you've been ignoring


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0805maceachern05.html

A scandal below the radar

[leadpenny]

If the NYT was told that I hope they stopped there.

I have a feeling some of the interest groups, that are going to feed everything they can to the dem senators on the committee, are trying to get any real dirt at this moment. NARAL and NOW come to mind.

[mewzilla]

The paper didn't consult their own in-house legal team. Or if they did, didn't want to take no for an answer. The fact that the paper consulted outside legal help says it all.

[gatex]

"The New York Times published nearly 1,200 reports on what was happening to European Jews. But only 26 of those stories made the front page."

Source -- "How the New York Times 'took a pass' on Holocaust," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sunday, July 24, 2005, page L4. (book review of Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America's Most Important Newspaper. by Laurel Leff )

The NYT also took a pass on the murder of millions by Stalin.