This is the line that gets me:

But the editor did confess: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions... They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue."

Arrogant asshole.

Understanding the sensitivity of the issue? Sheesh. We're talking about picking apart the existence of two children here. There IS NO SENSITIVITY from anyone who wants to play that game.

Fucking assholes.

Funny, that's the same reaction I had when I heard what the New York Times was looking for, regarding the adoption records.

In ten years of working at "mainstream newspapers," I've seen more people who do questionable things (whether it's cheating on their spouses or "embellishing" their stories) than I ever imagined I would see in my life. Yet these are the same people who feel no remorse about going on seek-and-destroy missions against people they are ideologically opposed to.

I say, let the journalists have a taste of their own medicine. If you're trying to take down a Supreme Court nominee or a government official and you have some skeletons in your own closet, perhaps it's best that we all have that information when we're deciding how to view your work as a reporter. Seems like there really should be a watchdog looking after all these brave, altruistic, ideologically neutral watchdogs working at mainstream newspapers!

Initial inquiries? How does contacting several specialists in the field fall under initial inquiries?

Isn't it a crime for someone to reveal the contents of sealed court records?

Seems like there ought to be a contempt of court charge, at least...

Who Watches the Watchmen?

Well, I think we've finally got ourselves an answer.

"There's a Shadow Media out there, kiddies. And we can get tips and make confirmatory phone-calls the same as you.

And do a lot of digging and publish embarassing stories about personal matters, same as you, only about you.

Y'all really ready to play by the same rules you torment the rest of us with?"

Do it.

The MSM has been playing the game of partisan digging for a while now. Just ask Barak Obama, Democrat and junior senator from Illinois - or rather, ask Jack Ryan, the Republican nominated to run against him. The Chicago Tribune sued to have Ryan's rather messy divorce settlement unsealed, then published it. I've never been divorced, thank God, but I'm told that unverified mudslinging is usual for a contested divorce - which is one reason why these records are sealed. In any event, the Trib got its court order, the mud was splashed across the front page, Ryan was chased from the race, and Obama waltzed into the Senate. The Tribune, though, showed admirable restraint when discussing with the divorce settlement of one John Kerry, who was running for something or other at the same time. Sometimes the MSM does show some restraint - at least, when it's dealing with Democrats.

I am the proud father of an adopted daughter. I am unlikely to be appointed to a high office, but it still creeps me out to think that someone, even the media, would stoop so low as to try to open sealed adoption records in order to discredit me.

Maybe this is why we have only losers and crooks to choose from in the voting booth.

And why don't we hear any indignant voices cry, "What he does in his private life has no bearing on his job?"

The MSM's personal hypocrisy is bad enough, but their biased hypocrisy is infuriating.

Sinner,

I could not agree with you more. My wife and I are just past the half way mark in our quest to bring our daughter home from China. It creeps me out too.

Also, you point about nobody but crooks left to vote for is spot on. Who the hell would want to run for any public office in this country. After all, how will you be able to explain that x-rated DVD that somehow was bought with your credit card?

I have done so many stupid things in my life. Most when I was younger - like from teens through mid 20's, but I have moved on. I guess no matter what I do from now on out, it will never erase what I did and someone will one day dig it up.

Sad.

I'm a little worried about this "an eye for an eye" strategy.

I'm worried that "a snoop for a snoop" will lead to "a snoop for a snoop that ends up revealing the facts surrounding a juvenile but otherwise inexcusable two-week bender in Tijuana, the details of which the bastards promised would be wiped off the official records, since I paid a hell of a lot of money to all the right people for that very reason, damnit."

I guess I'll leave the counter-MSM Shadow Media investigation to you, Ace.

On second thought, maybe Allah should handle this.

"After all, how will you be able to explain that x-rated DVD that somehow was bought with your credit card?"

Um... well, from the cover, the girls looked really hot...

The pace of career destruction in the left media certainly hasn't been very satisfying lately. I'd hate to see things go to far in the other direction, though. We should take time to savor each takedown before moving on to the next. Each case should be developed with the thoroughness that results in the journalist agreeing and admitting in the end that the career-ending accusations brought against him are true and that his fate is justified. That's the gold standard of cruelty: when the one you're hurting tells you you're right to hurt him.

"In ten years of working at 'mainstream newspapers,' I've seen more people who do questionable things..."

Well hello there Beth.
Are any of them people we've heard of?

Regarding what I said in my previous post, I'm speaking in generalities (and I know that doesn't help this particular cause). Apologies for that.

I went to journalism school with what I now consider pure motives -- I just enjoyed writing -- and I never expected to enter a profession that was filled with left and far-left types who wouldn't cover the news even-handedly. Naive, I know. But most of us go off to college when we're 17 or 18, and in many cases, somewhat clueless. That was me, and I wasn't the least bit politically motivated at the time, either.

That all changed when I saw my newspaper colleagues' reaction to Bush winning the 2000 election. These same people who had been so quiet through the Clinton years (and I mistook that silence for impartiality) were indignant and outraged. So I found out the truth about them rather quickly.

For the reason that I actually still need my job at this point, I can't go into great detail about where I work. It's in Pennsylvania, and it's safe to say we're not competing with the New York Times in the circulation category.

In other words, the hypocrisy I've seen personally wouldn't be of much interest, because we're a bit smaller than the Times and the Post and the Chicago Tribune. I'm just saying that there are a lot of arrogant journalists (even at smaller papers) who consider it their duty to take down anyone and everyone (Republican, that is) who has something negative in his or her past. But their own pasts' wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny, either.

It's sort of like "the media can question anyone," but "no one should dare question the media." So, I guess all I'm saying is that we can be fairly sure that the people trying to take down Roberts (or Bush or Bolton or whoever it is at any given time) have some background that they probably wouldn't want to share with everyone.

I think that's true of most people. The difference with journalists is that they often act like they and they alone are above reproach!

By the way, Ace, your blog makes my day.

Beth,

My email box is always open for tips. Anonymous sourcing, off the record. All that good stuff.

Ace's therapy doll does his fact checking for him.
She won't let him get away with shabby reportage, though he throttles her mercilessly.

Here's a hot scoop: That Terry Moran that works for ABC and who constantly simpers his way from damning question to pissy indignation? He's real fucking queer or my name's Jimbo. I mean, look at the guy! Listen to him!

I don't care if he's married or has 12 brats, that guy pounds the stinky starfish.

errrr... libel much?

For everyone's benefit, Spongeworthy was KIDDING.

Laurie Dhue is part midget.
Her dad used to wear a harness and let guys toss him around a pub.

Hey, its a living.

You know, I've been thinking for a while about this...

In the last what, 4-5 years, the internet has allowed masses of people to see the first hand facts without first going through the filter of a left wing media.

We've seen them publish fake stories, lies, and as in this case, dig the dirt deeper depending on who the subject is. We've had more ability to see the chasm between the media's reporting and actual events better than ever. We've been able to see the bias and see what points of view they are reporting from.

My question is, if we were to look at the issue of Bosnia from the place we are able to view it from now, would we reach the same conclusion?

We now know which side the media will take in a fight between brown non-christians and white christians. We know they are not opposed to making stuff up, or reporting based on some anonymous sources that may or may not exist, and we know they are very open to reporting the wild rhetoric of alleged eyewitnesses as long as it agrees with their worldview. We also have seen more than ever that that UN is not about playing political games.

So in light of this, were we really on the right side in the Bosnian war, or were we duped into supporting terrorists by a media (and a Clinton administration) that was all for them and against those 'white jesus-freaks'?

My starter husband works at the NYT. Can't wait till someone asks me what he's hiding.

My question is, if we were to look at the issue of Bosnia from the place we are able to view it from now, would we reach the same conclusion?

Are you referring to the war that we recently fought for the express purpose of effecting regime change, against a country that posed no strategic threat to the US, resulting in substantial civilian deaths, and was justified on the basis of intelligence that we now know to have been exaggerated or outright fraudulent? That Bosnia?

Yes, something tells me that the outcome would have been different, at least in terms of PR.

At the very least, the Left would have been forced to come up with other talking points as they tried to gin up opposition to Iraq.

To call this rag the New York Slimes is to give it a promotion.