hopperbach


Sunday, August 07, 2005

John Roberts "disappointed" in NY Times investigation of children

Drudge is saying now that the New York Times is doing a little back-stepping in the John Roberts adoption story (my advice NYT: be careful not to trip over any little blonde kids):

Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts expressed great disappointment after learning the NEW YORK TIMES was poking around for details on his adopted children, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The DRUDGE REPORT first revealed how TIMES investigative reporter Glen Justice questioned if the adoption records for the Roberts children, Josephine and Jack, ages 5 and 4, would be made available for examination.

TIMES editors were determined to find any possible legal irregularities in the adoptions, insiders claim.

FOXNEWS's Brit Hume reported late last week how the TIMES has been asking lawyers that specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records:

"Sources familiar with the matter tell FOXNEWS that at least one lawyer turned the TIMES down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible.

A senior editor at the TIMES lashed out at this space over the revelation:

"The DRUDGE REPORT is wrong, overwrought and a gross misrepresentation of what has happened," blasted the paper's senior editor in a press release.

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."

Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson called the newspaper's actions "reprehensible," saying the inquiry crossed the "fine line between legitimate background inquiries and invasion of privacy."

The National Council For Adoption issued the following statement:

“NCFA denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the shocking decision of the New York Times to investigate the adoption records of Justice John Roberts’ two young children. The adoption community is outraged that, for obviously political reasons, the Times has targeted the very private circumstances, motivations, and processes by which the Roberts became parents.

"The adoption histories of four- and five-year old children have no bearing whatsoever on the suitability of Justice Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court – or in any other position, for that matter."

There you have it. All the news that's fit to line the litterbox. Next the Times plans to investigate whether the water Roberts was baptized with as an infant was indeed holy.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,