-
Posted
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:11 AM
| By
Emily Bazelon
Ed Whelan at NRO didn't like the piece Dahlia and I wrote yesterday defending Linda Greenhouse. We're not eager for a tit for tat. But it seems worth repeating that our basic point, which Whelan ignores, is that critics on the right go after Greenhouse with an overwrought vigor not visited upon any other Supreme Court reporter (and few other reporters in general). The point seems to be to discredit her and the paper, and what we were objecting to is the Times feeding the whole thing. (Though we did appreciate that Whelan didn't like what Hoyt had to say about him.)
Whelan can attack whomever he wants. What's odd, though, is that he seems so reluctant to own up to being a hatchet man. He seems surprised that we feel like he has gone after us, too. I dunno, phrases like "strikingly dishonest and incompetent--or both" (about my writing) and "dishonest and baseless" (Dahlia's) seem pretty clear. (Isn't this great--now he's got me doing his research and reprinting his nastygrams.) Whelan used that language during the Alito and Roberts hearings, a perfect time for confusing the conversation about the nominees with overheated zingers about anyone who dared to criticize them.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?