August 10, 2007
NYT Supreme Court Correspondent Tangles With Media
The normally staid Supreme Court press corps is getting some catty coverage of late.
The latest example: New York Times SCOTUS correspondent Linda Greenhouse is at the center of a small media brouhaha yet again. The Columbia Journalism Review reports that "Hurricane Linda" threw a fit yesterday when she learned that the panel discussion she was to partake in was being televised by C-SPAN. Forced to choose between kicking out the cameras or proceeding with the panel without the venerated journalist, the event's organizers chose the former.
Witnesses said "Greenhouse walked in, took one look at the lights and the camera equipment, and, 'became infuriated,'" according to CJR's account.
Reporter Gal Beckerman speculates Greenhouse's fit may have something to do with lingering fallout following a speech in which she appeared to disclose her liberal political leanings.
Greenhouse is a Supreme Court press corps institution. Most reporters covering the court are squeezed into cubicles or forced to share tables in the transitional trailer reserved for them. The reporters given offices can be counted on one hand, and Greenhouse has the largest. (Perfunctory disclosure: This Gater covered the court for a previous employer.)
For even dedicated newspaper readers, the obscurity in which the high court operates can be difficult to parse. That may be why, more than most Washington reporters, the SCOTUS press corps is expected to approach the job with the utmost nonpartisanship. And it is definitely why the media was so startled by the speech Greenhouse gave last year at her alma mater, Harvard University.
NPR's David Folkenflik was first to report on the speech, in which Greenhouse lamented "the extent to which our government turned its energy and attention away from upholding the rule of law and toward creating law-free zones at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other places around the world -- the U.S. Congress, whatever."
As if that wasn't bad enough, Greenhouse landed squarely on the third rail of Supreme Court coverage by revealing where she stands on the abortion debate. "And let's not forget the sustained assault on women's reproductive freedom and the hijacking of public policy by religious fundamentalism," she continued. "To say that these last few years have been dispiriting is an understatement."
After Folkenflick's report, media critics wondered aloud what the consequences would be for Greenhouse. So far, there haven't really been any, but there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. For one, most reporters, even those covering the Supreme Court, have opinions. (OK, duh.) There's an argument to be made that coming clean with readers about your biases does them a service.
For another, to say that Greenhouse's personal opinions have somehow tainted her decades of SCOTUS coverage is a matter of, well, personal opinion. Conservatives who were already dismissive of the Grey Lady clearly got some ammo. Meanwhile, Greenhouse's regular readers were probably aware that her longtime insider status might be a factor in her reporting (by way of "the Greenhouse Effect"). Any close follower of the court knows how open to analysis legal briefs and opinions are, and knows to supplement the media coverage he or she ingests.
Back to the C-SPAN flap. Programming VP Terence Murphy angrily complained in a letter to organizers that C-SPAN found it "perplexing" that Greenhouse objected to channel's presence, and that "the larger concern is why... organizers allowed Ms. Greenhouse’s view to prevail. If professors of journalism and working journalists taking part in a journalism education conference don’t stand up for open media access to public policy discussions, who will?”
Greenhouse's response: "There is a difference between appearing before a room of 50 or so professors and speaking on national television, as I’m sure you recognize." Noting that she has agreed to appear on the network "dozens of times in the past," she continues, "My past voluntary appearances do not give" C-SPAN "rights in perpetuity to broadcast events at which I appear, whether I agree or not."
OK, so maybe there's something to the grand dame reputation. Arguably, with nearly three decades of coverage and a Pulitzer Prize under her belt, she may have earned it.
The past couple of years have been heady times for the high court, which isn't used to getting such scrupulous attention from the public. The rise of blogs has also facilitated a previously unavailable peek into the workings of the reporters who cover it.
NPR's own legal correspondent, Nina Totenberg, rivals Greenhouse for the role of SCOTUS press corps dean. Legal gossip blog Above the Law (yes, there is such a thing) has been collecting anecdotes about the veteran reporter, some of them quite juicy. ATL also weighs in on Greenhouse v. C-SPAN, as do Broadcasting & Cable and Buzz Machine.
Posted at 6:35 PM
Posted to:
Constitution, Media, Supreme Court
Share via
