Greenhouse v. Greenburg: This Queen Bee Will Not Buzz Off
We have previously compared the fierce competition between Supreme Court correspondents Linda Greenhouse, of the New York Times, and Jan Crawford Greenburg, of the Chicago Tribune, to the rivalry between Margo Channing (Bette Davis) and Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter) in All About Eve.
For decades, Linda Greenhouse has ruled the reportorial roost at the Supreme Court -- just as Margo Channing reigned over the New York stage. But just as Channing came to be challenged by a young and attractive newcomer, Eve Harrington, Greenhouse now faces tough competition from Jan Crawford Greenburg.
Perhaps this comparison, much as we love it, must stop here. We don't want to spoil All About Eve for those of you who haven't seen it. But let's just say that Margo doesn't put up much of a fight when Eve moves into her turf.
Linda Greenhouse, in contrast, is NOT going gentle into that good night. She will NOT pass her tiara graciously to Jan Crawford Greenburg, like a Miss America ending her reign. Greenhouse has no intention of allowing Greenburg to ascend to the post of America's Next Top Supreme Court Reporter -- at least not without a (cat)fight.
How do we know this? Just read between the lines of this "Reporter's Notebook" item by Greenhouse. It's snarkily entitled "Alarmism in the Blogosphere" -- "blogsophere" being synonymous with "unreliable and dubious rumor-mongering" -- and in it, Linda G. goes out of her way to embarrass and even humiliate her younger colleague:
Jan Crawford Greenburg, an ABC News correspondent who covers the court, posted a startling item last week on her blog, Legalities. Under the heading “Faith and Frailty,” she wrote that the “real drama” of an argument concerning the Bush administration’s religion-based initiative came when the argument ended.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s delay in getting to her feet and leaving the bench, Ms. Greenburg wrote, seemed a sign of possible ill health and “made me think I’d better start pulling those possible retirement files together.”
The alarming item quickly made its way around the blogosphere, puzzling court insiders who know that Justice Ginsburg, 73, is in fine health and keeps to a schedule that would exhaust most people who are decades younger....
The explanation is, quite literally, pedestrian. According to her chambers, Justice Ginsburg had kicked off her shoes during the argument and could not find one of them.
OUCH. Jan Crawford Greenburg did some phenomenal reporting work for her fantastic new book on the Court, Supreme Conflict. But in a single breezy, casually tossed-off "Reporter's Notebook" item, Greenhouse makes Greenburg look like a rank amateur.
We conduct a close reading of Greenhouse's column, after the jump.
Okay. Let's parse the specific language used by Greenhouse in her write-up:
"a startling item" = "sensationalized and tawdry""[t]he alarming item" = "JCG is the National Enquirer of One First Street"
"quickly made its way around the blogosphere" = "I can't believe she got link love from Drudge for this crap. Actually, maybe I can."
"puzzling court insiders" = "Just 'cause JCG scored a few good interviews for that book of hers doesn't make her a TRUE 'court insider' -- like MOI."
"According to her chambers, Justice Ginsburg..." = "I still have the best access to the justices, especially those on the liberal wing of the Court. And I'm not ceding my turf to same Jan-ny Come Lately!"
Linda's implicit message to Jan can be summed up as follows: "You can speculate all you want in that pretty little head of yours. But THIS is what we call reporting, dearie. Try it sometime -- you might like it."
Reporter's Notebook: Alarmism in the Blogosphere [New York Times]
Faith & frailty [Legalities]
Earlier: All About... Jan?
(12) 
This is not the first time LG has been defensive in the face of the JCG assault on her throne:
http://newhouse-web.syr.edu/legal/blog_comments.cfm?blogpost=156
LG may also be reacting to JCG's snide remarks in Supreme Conflict about LG misreporting the real story behind Thomas' early influence on Scalia, rather than the inverse (don't have a page cite in front of me)
Who cares. JCG is hot, unlike LG.
Linda Greenburg's Notebook is almost as dry as her SCOTUS coverage.
At least JCG is a real attorney with a JD(sorry LG). And she is far hotter.
Eve Harrington responds...
Jan Greenburg updated her post on Ginsburg in light of Greenhouse's comments. I think Jan responds graciously and intelligently. Talk about Ginburg's health needs to be resonable, but remember this is an old, frail woman who was recently sleeping on the bench for the first time ever -- speculation is not wholly unwarranted.
"UPDATE: The shoe must go on! Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times correspondent who covers the Court, writes today that Justice Ginsburg was slowed in her exit last week by a missing shoe. (And I thought it was only us southern gals who like to kick off our shoes during a good argument!) I had reported in my blog that the Court said Justice Ginsburg was "absolutely fine," and I’d suggested that she’d perhaps turned her ankle during a strenuous workout. So thanks to Linda for helpfully solving the mystery. (And thanks to those of you who read my blog and were able to grasp my bigger point. With the Court in the balance, the health of any justice is an issue of critical concern, and bold predictions -- including my own -- about non-retirements aren’t worth much, as Justice O’Connor showed us all in 2005.)"
OWNED! In a ladylike way, of course.
UPDATE: The shoe must go on! Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times correspondent who covers the Court, writes today that Justice Ginsburg was slowed in her exit last week by a missing shoe. (And I thought it was only us southern gals who like to kick off our shoes during a good argument!) I had reported in my blog that the Court said Justice Ginsburg was "absolutely fine," and I’d suggested that she’d perhaps turned her ankle during a strenuous workout. So thanks to Linda for helpfully solving the mystery. (And thanks to those of you who read my blog and were able to grasp my bigger point. With the Court in the balance, the health of any justice is an issue of critical concern, and bold predictions -- including my own -- about non-retirements aren’t worth much, as Justice O’Connor showed us all in 2005.)
Ooooooo. Hotter AND classier. (The update proves the later and any picture proves the former).
"Numbers do not lie, but out of context, they can easily mislead," Greenhouse observes earlier in the same column. That is an apt observation, given that quotes, too, can lie when ripped out of context, particularly when the author deliberately sets out to misrepresent their subject, as Greenhouse seemingly attempts to do here. As a matter of policy, the New York Times doesn't link, which is fortunate for Greenhouse: it gives her plausible deniability that she didn't intend to hide Greenburg's actual comments from readers, but happily, Greenburg's comments are readily accessible by anyone. Read in context, they utterly refute and preempt Greenhouse's charges.
Methinks the real issue here is that Greenhouse is engaging in a belated attempt to protect her flank, distorting Greenburg's comments in a futile effort to portray her as a rookie gossip. I can imagine how Greenhouse might feel threatened by a reporter who gives us a glimpse of what genuinely dispassionate and informed reporting about the Supreme Court looks, a standard against which Greenhouse falls far short.
Greenhouse's most plausible defense is to invoke Hanlon's Razor in defense of her egregious mischaracterization of Greenburg's remarks; that would make her look foolish, but at present she looks petty and unprofessional. Take your pick, Linda.
This totally backfired. Jan Greenburg 1, Linda Greenhouse 0.
LG will always be the queen of SCOTUS reporting until her retirement. it's foolish for JCG to think she can take that away from LG.
On her "update," JCG admits her predictions are worthless. So why does she make them? It's fun to speculate I guess. Except Greenhouse doesn't have to speculate -- she KNOWS.
JCG is just a little too lazy for my taste.
Nick,
So far as I can see, in the post at issue, Greenburg accurately reported that Ginsburg seemed to be having difficulties leaving the courtroom, but provided reasons why this shouldn't be seen as a sign or portent. In point of fact, her comments -- arriving before the media cycle following that argument -- could be seen as trying to preempt and calm precisely the rumors that Greenhouse accuses her of spreading. Read both columns - I can't see how you could accuse Greenburg of laziness when that is the most charitable explanation available for Greenhouse's column.