She didn't want to have to "modulate" her comments for a national audience? Doesn't CSPAN have an audio feed? I think they mic her and feed it through the airwaves and the speakers on individual tvs reproduce her voice. It's not like she'd have to yell so the viewers in California could hear her.

Supreme Court Justices to $200k!

Lat,

You need to get on C-SPAN's cc list.

That seems weird. I know for a fact that LG participated in W&M's Supreme Court Preview as a justice in the moot court, which was televised on C-SPAN, and that she answered questions from the audience afterward.

I'm having trouble controlling THE VOLUME OF MY VOICE.

I don't think "diva" is the right way to describe her. I think the more accurate description is "left-wing bitch with axe to grind." Good job, Lat, expsoing a small part of the blantant liberal bias of the MSM.

Greenhouse, your "star" is falling. Time to put this dinosaur in the tar pit.

(I liked how she dissed a blogger too, not even Vince Chase can pull that)

I can't thank you enough for keeping LG under the microscope. She's little more than an Angry Left nothinburger who scurries like a rat the minute someone (like Lat) turns on a light.

Keep it up. Give her no peace!

Oh, and look at the odd way she holds that microphone, kinda' like a...

... knife?

gavel?

dong?

Great job, ATL!

Why why did I go to Loyola Law School. Previously, my life was spent on interesting things. Now I’m in a profession where I have to care what some bespecled turd of a woman cares. On top of that the best job I can hope for, as a top 25% Loyola student, is a $25/hour job at a toilet plaintiff’s law firm where I serve litigious trash. Fuck you Loyola Law School. Fuck you to hell.

She hasn't held a dong in 15 years, minimum. Just look at her.

Didn't La Greenhouse get into big trouble for a supposedly "neutral" abd "fact-based" speech that she gave at a Harvard Commencement event a couple of years back?

Haha, great post.

I'll just go ahead and point out that JCG seems to have been a panelist as well (judging by the cc list on CSPAN's letter) and we have heard nothing about her having any problem with cameras. Of course maybe that is because she doesn't look like a scary old rat...

Seriously, put a fork in LG already, she is done.

I like how "woman with liberal opinions" is synonymous with "left-wing bitch" for some people - or, for that matter, "Angry Left nothingburger." Real mature. I'd be embarrassed if I were on your side.

Seriously, people. She's a smart lady, she knows way more about the Supreme Court than you do, and it is only to be expected that she has opinions about the topic that she spends her days covering. Yes, it's a journalist's job to be impartial, but that doesn't mean not having opinions, or not voicing your opinions at any time -- it means keeping your opinions out of your news reporting.

If I were Linda Greenhouse, I would certainly want to be able to express my opinions at panel discussions from time to time. And I'd want to do so without being nationally televised, because of the great likelihood that if it were televised a bunch of right-wing "geniuses" would seize upon it and start flinging shit (see above re: "left-wing bitch" & "Angry Left nothingburger").

What Linda Greenhouse did wrong here, apparently, was that she failed to make her objections to TV cameras known in advance, so that the C-SPAN production crew rightly felt jerked around. Since it was apparently her fault for not dealing with this issue in a timely way, she should have sucked it up and gone on TV and moderated her comments as she felt necessary.

So I'm not defending her actions here. I'm just objecting to the right-wing ad hominem bullshit responses.

I also recognize that there's a separate debate to be had over whether Linda Greenhouse's newspaper coverage of the Supreme Court is actually biased. But this story is neither here nor there with respect to that issue. All it shows is that she has personal opinions that are liberal (as is widely known). Debating whether her reporting is biased would require actual analysis of her reporting, and there is none of that going on here.

Outstanding.

Is all that underlining and italicizing in the CSPAN letter (emphasis in original)? Jeez, that reads almost like some of the hand-written, RANDomLY CapITALIzED habeas petitions I've had to deal with.

Ah, nice to have L2L back in fine form.

1:52 - I really don't read anyone's comments about LG being Left wing and liberal as synonymous with being a 'bitch.' Here they just happen to coincide, as you yourself essentially concede.

2:00, I'd say the italics are in the original but the red underlining is from DL.

It's not the manner in which she holds the mic that's objectionable in that photo, it's the pursed lips and slightly raised up chin that bespeak arrogance and condescension. This has nothing to do with her politics. She is obviously the kind of person who doesn't care how she comes off, and is also awkward and anti-social enough not to be quite aware of how she comes off to people.

I gotta say this is a great post and a great thread. Just when I promise myself to stop reading ATL, I read something like this and get sucked back in. Hilarious stuff.

1:52, I thought the bias of her articles wasn't even in question any longer after her piece on Roberts' seizure. So yes, there has been analysis of her writing on this site:

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/08/linda_greenhouse_drama_queen.php#more

I suppose JCG will fill Lat in on the all the juicy details. Work it Lat!

This is the best story. I love it when partisan journalists object to being the object of partisan journalism. The mocker is mocked, and all God's children said 'Amen!'

(((She is obviously the kind of person who doesn't care how she comes off, )))

Ummm... What was this post about again?

Oh, and anybody who thinks she's holding that microphone like a dong needs to get a girlfriend.

The point is that all you have to do is look at that stupid picture to know something about her - you don't need stories about hissy fits.

"Seriously, people. She's a smart lady, she knows way more about the Supreme Court than you do, and it is only to be expected that she has opinions about the topic that she spends her days covering. Yes, it's a journalist's job to be impartial, but that doesn't mean not having opinions, or not voicing your opinions at any time -- it means keeping your opinions out of your news reporting."

Very true. Of course, the problem is that most readers don't think she keeps her opinion out of her reporting. Going around espousing political views about her topic of reporting isn't helping any claims to neutrality. It would make a lot more sense for the NYT to officially embrace its position as a left-of-center paper (as papers in Europe do). Then the biased writing would not have to be hidden by turning off the cameras.

Of course if a conservative journalist were making political comments about their topic of expertise, it would be evidence that the reporting was biased. Because only liberals can put aside their views and report objectively.

"But this story is neither here nor there with respect to that issue. All it shows is that she has personal opinions that are liberal (as is widely known). "

I don't think it's as widely known among non-legal readers. Maybe if her column was in the op-ed section instead of the news section, it would be more known.

She's holding it like (1) a weapon that she's going to bludgeon someone with, or (2) an MC holds a mike when s/he's about to bust a rhyme... sorta like "aw sheeit, you done did it now. LG's gonna tell you what time it is."

Listen up C-SPAN, you won’t televise me
I’m hard like a thug, ain’t got a face for TV
I’m here to diss the court, and tell it like I see
Can’t be thinkin’ bout the pundits or the FCC

Me and Tony K., we used to be tight
He’d use his swing vote to fight the good fight
Now he’s cutting back Brown, overruling Dr. Miles
And he even took me off of his speed dial
I just can’t stand that kinda disrespect
Don’t tell me you stopped feelin’ my Greenhouse Effect

If I see me remarks on the ATL
I’m kill all you suckaz, send you straight to hell

An opinionated and rude bitch is a bitch. Who cares whether she is liberal or conservative? That comment applies both to the conservatives who hate LG only because she is a liberal and to the liberals who hate Fox News but don't like LG being categorized as a diva because they agree with her politics.

3:22 -- your talents (and sense of humor) are wasted if you are in Biglaw!

Bravo, 3:22! Lat has a shout-out to your fine work in the update post.

Are we completely sure that LG's desire to kill the cameras was entirely due to the audio recording of her candid remarks and not the fact that the camera does not exactly love LG?

There may be a reason why she is in print media.....140 such pounds er reasons.

MOREOVER, the LG-Lat feud makes GREAT BLOG COPY!!!!

This threatens to take on the proportions of the Spy Magazine-Donald Trump feud from the 1980’s—with equally hilarious results.

So LG: Keep the catty remarks about ALT coming, and keep wearing those Capri pants. They are sooo slimming. (Yikes!)

C-SPAN needs a 5 person crew?

sure, it is irrelevant....but dang, her photo looks _exactly_ like I would have pictured her.

So.

The diva thinks , due to her public prominence, she should have MORE influence on the court.

But she wants to do it secretly, through the "code" in her writing. And certainly she doesn't want the average joe on the street to catch on.

She represents the perfect essence of the liberal elitist modern Democrat. They slave away trying to "make a difference". They know what's best for us! And they also know the only way they can get the power to do those things is by hiding their true agenda. Because we bumpkins just ain't smart enough to appreciate their wisdom!

5 person crew?

If they used their own gear, I would easily expect 2 cameras, 1 or 2 on sound and mikes, maybe 1 producer or an assistant. Possibly a PC tech, though I'd doubt it.

I guess you don't watch much CSPAN, huh?

Why don't you punks bite my rancid shorts? I've got bigger balls than most of you.

the plot thinkens... http://aejmc.org/talk/?p=558

"When given a choice between privacy and accountability we always choose privacy for ourselves and accountability for everyone else. This is especially noxious when it's some all-powerful leader making the choice."

Greenhouse doesn't want cameras and microphones because her opinions are likely so strident, so vehement, so vein-bulging and eye-popping that no sane editor could possibly pretend that any such person could be even remotely objective in covering the subject of her intemperate tirade.

Of course, we right-wing troglodytes already know this from her reporting, but Bill Keller at least has plausible deniability now...he wouldn't in the face of a spittle-coated rant posted on YouTube.

Here's a modest proposal.

Just as we now have analysts and financial reporters disclose any potential conflict of interest in published articles, why can't we have the same kind of transparency in reporting by all media?

Let's have all reporters, writers, anchor persons and others disclose political affiliation and history of donations to various causes that are covered in their reporting.

Jimm,
I was just getting ready to say that! In my opinion it is impossible to be "objective" or "neutral" even if you are trying. You only have so much space so you choose what is important and what is not. Immediately you are selecting based on personal values.

Going further with your idea would be linking to original sources where possible. So many times I see a study summarized, only to track down the the study and realize that the results were different than what was reported. And what about the competency of the reporters to report on technical issues? The fact that the Lancet researchers refused to provide access to their raw data should raise a red flag with anyone knowledgeable about science. But reporters let it pass to concentrate more on the sensational stories.

Something that I find amusing is that journalism is a business. As such, it ought to operate under the same kind of laws to which other businesses must conform. Newspapers advertise themselves as sources of news. Sections that are news are clearly delineated from those that are not. So, what can consumers do when what is advertised is news is not news? I'm not sure but there seems to be laws that govern false claims for products and services.

What makes an advertisement deceptive?
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:

* Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
* Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.shtm

So I agree with you, and I think news should be more like science. Full disclosure of conflicts of interest, open to review, and as much as possible subject to independent verification.

Really the easiest way to get immediate correction to some of these problems is to open all articles up to comments.

My God what an ugly woman. Not just her face, I mean the ugliness of her soul, deep inside. Look at those eyes, the superiority, the condescension, the supercilious pendantry. Thank you Linda, for sparing the national audience the agony of looking at that dog face. Wow. Bow wow wow. Ow! What an uncanny resemblance to Janet Reno. Are ugly lesbians running the whole country now? Oh yes,she's a smart woman, smart enough to write cunning lies, smart enough to dispense elitist blather about the black-robed tyrants. We need to reduce the number of Supreme Court judges to two or three, reduce the role of the Court to that of an advisory panel, get rid of the power to declare laws "unconstitutional", and prohibit any Court jurisdiction over social issues like abortion, affirmative racism, immigration, etc. The Court should be restricted to refereeing commercial matters regarding interstate commerce. It's time to take our country back, and put Linda Greenhouse on a bus to Montana. Sorry, Montana, but she can blend in with the cattle out there.

Why, oh why, did I ever leave the field of law?? Fantastic thread - have emailed legals I know to read and/or comment. Grassing LG! Who said Sundays are boring?

anon @ 01:52 PM = LG Sockpuppet

To be clear, she is not a bitch because she is a lefty, she is a lefty AND a bitch. There are plenty of pleasant lefties - LG is not one of them.

Sure I want to express my opinions to a public audience.

However, I want them kept secret.

Is there a way to do this?