Well, now we know why the NYTimes hasn’t bothered to cover Air Enron/Air Scamerica. They’re too preoccupied with prying into the adoption records of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’ young children, according to the Drudge Report.

For God’s sake.

Jeff Goldstein has a list of what’s next on the NYTimes’ dirt-digging agenda.

4: Can Judge Roberts account for his whereabouts on the night Natalee disappeared?

NYTimes ombudsman Byron Calame is going to be a very busy man.

***
On the same wavelength…Ed Morrissey, Jason Smith

Bainbridge: Slimy slimeballs

Hugh Hewitt with the mega-round-up.

John H. at Power Line: “[N]ow that the Times’ investigation into John Roberts’ four and five year old children has fizzled out and been abandoned, can they free up some resources to start checking into Air America’s financial chicanery?”

***
Update: For what it’s worth, here’s a response one of my blog readers, TexasSecyMom, received from the NY Times’ executive editor desk…

As is often the case, the Drudge Report is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened.

Like all major news organizations, we report extensively on the life and career of any nominee or candidate for high public office. Most of the inquiries we make do not report in published articles at all; we would simply be remiss if we did not ask the questions.

In the case of Judge Roberts’s family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions.

TexasSecyMom replied:

Thank you for your reply, I appreciate the information.

Perhaps I would be less inclined to believe someone like Matt Drudge if the New York Times had a better track record when it comes to biased reporting about conservatives. I know that the editorial staff at the NYTimes loves to proclaim its nonpartisanship, but that is just a bunch of baloney. For example, your newspaper has printed almost 60 articles about Air America, all of them glowing with praise for Al Franken and the rest of the staff at the failing liberal radio network. However, there have been exactly ZERO stories about the growing scandal involving Air America and the use of funds intended for the elderly and children to pay the bills. How were Al Franken and everyone else paid nice salaries while losing listeners throughout the country, and did any of that money come from the “loan” from the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club? When you decide that you can either admit that you are a liberal newspaper, or you can change the way your stories are reported, then I will actually be able to read the NYTimes without discounting much of what I read.

Update II: Bloggers and readers have questions for the muck-rakers:

Angry in the Great White North has two questions…

1. Was Glen Justice on the case? If so, why, given a serious incident in his past for misreporting on critically important political story?

2. What the hell did you think you were going to find in the first place? Indeed, what did you hope to find?

Reader Andrew G:

Question to the NYT: Which of Drudge’s statements was wrong? The NYT response doesn’t indicate a specific substantive error or misrepresentation.

Update III: Reader Glenn B. passes along a new statement from the NY Times, this time from the public editor’s office…

Dear Reader,

Thanks for writing to us.

While the public editor does not usually get involved in pre-publication
matters, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he
would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts’s children.
He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this
issue.

In addition, a senior editor at the paper wrote, “In the case of Judge
Roberts’s family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions,
as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with
great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up
an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the
initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions.”

Sincerely,
Joe Plambeck
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

Note: The public editor’s opinions are his own and do not represent those
of The New York Times

comments (0)   trackbacks (37)