When I wrote about Linda Greenhouse’s problematic story anticipating the Supreme Court arguments over a federal ban on partial-birth abortions, reader Mattk wondered why we would cover it here at GetReligion:
Is it because most of the people who oppose abortion are religious? Is it because there are so many Roman Catholics on the court? Is it because over the years Justice Scalia has put on some pounds and maybe he is a practicing glutton? What’s the tie-in?
While abortion is not necessarily a religious issue, the coverage of the larger issue is riddled with religious ghosts. Many of the most ardent opponents of the practice are practicing Christians or religious adherents of another stripe. The questions surrounding abortion — such as when life begins, when life begins to have value, how our legal system defines personhood, how society feels about sexuality apart from procreation — all have a religious angle. That’s why we discuss abortion coverage here. And, you’ll note, many religion reporters include hot-button issues such as abortion on their beat.
The most interesting aspects of recent coverage include descriptions of the lack of exercise of judicial faculties and how the justices determined medical and health impacts. But there was also a law-breaking protester! Here’s how Charles Lane of The Washington Post reported it:
The most dramatic moment of the morning came moments later, at about 10:40 a.m., when a loud voice cried out from the back of the courtroom.
“Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood!” shouted a man later identified by the court as Rives Miller Grogan, 40, of Los Angeles. He was immediately tackled and dragged out by Supreme Court police, who charged him with violating a federal law against disrupting court sessions, as well as with offenses related to resisting arrest.
Lane’s article did a good job of characterizing the arguments, using neutral language and plenty of color. Linda Greenhouse’s wrap-up for The New York Times was also very good, although she somehow didn’t notice the protester. Maybe in her world abortion opponents aren’t factual realities. Still, ignoring the protester was better than what Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick did. She somehow heard the protester utter words that no one else heard and seemed a bit foggy about the whole event. Good reporting! Oh, did I mention her piece is headlined “Doctor, there’s a lawyer in my womb”? and that Slate is owned by The Washington Post? Anyway, here’s Lithwick:
For the first time in my eight years at the court, I watch as a spectator begins to shout, “Have you ever been a parent?” and something about Jesus and perishing, before he is tackled by court security and dragged out of the chambers. His screams can be heard for some time after he’s been removed. It’s quite distracting. I think from now on the court security guards should maybe carry Tasers.
Still, Lithwick reported a religious angle that no one else did. Apparently Planned Parenthood’s Eve Gartner told the justices that how a woman “wants her fetus to undergo demise” is a “very personal moral/religious decision.” Chief Justice John Roberts asked why decisions about the impact on the fetus were beyond the scope of things Congress can take into account. Interesting exchange.
Maybe I’ve been beaten down by decades of horrific abortion reporting, particularly with stories about partial-birth abortion laws, but these stories were not the worst I’ve seen.
The image, by the way, is of Dylan and his dancing protester of commercialism from a few Grammys ago.
 | Posted at 1:12 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (7) |
November 10, 2006, at 7:36 am
Yeah, that Lithwick line about having court personnel
torture, err, taser protestors stood out to me. Especially in light of the fact of how she has twisted and misreported on torture in past columns.And if you thought Greenhouse was bad, see Lithwick in the Alliance for Justice video:
-linked and reported by Orin Kerr, here. As Prof. Kerr says, “I guess you could say this. I mean, it wouldn’t be accurate, but hey, you could still say it.”
November 10, 2006, at 11:08 am
As for the journalism question of whether the protester should be mentioned (and journalism questions are why we’re here, yes?), that’s hardly a settled call. The news — the event that brought everyone there that day — was the argument before the court. The protester was there to get publicity for his side. He neither disrupted the proceedings (for longer than a moment) nor created other news (by, say, killing or injuring himself or others).
So as a matter of pure news, given that he offered none, do you mention him? Note for comparison the decision by TV broadcasters not to show yahoos who run onto the field during a football game.
OTOH, he was there. It was an unusual bit of color for a SCOTUS hearing.
If it were me, I’d have given him a couple of lines below the actual news of the story. An “Oh, by the way, in an odd moment” kind of mention.
And btw, Lithwick is a columnist. That means she is not only paid to have opinions, she is paid to tell you what they are. So whether I agree with her taser comment or not, she gets to make it.
Lane and Greenhouse also have opinions, of course. But they are paid to keep them out of their copy.
November 10, 2006, at 11:14 am
When I was reading Lithwick’s column yesterday, I actually thought, “Hey! This would make a great GetReligion post.”
I can never tell if Slate’s articles are supposed to be columns, like Jeffrey Weiss says, or if they’re supposed to be some weird mutant hybrid of opinion and reportage. Lithwick is the most confusing. Occasionally, her pieces are straight reportage on what arguments were made at the court and what the justices said in response, and I value those pieces. Then, there are times where she can’t restrain herself from wishing violence on protesters.
I realize we live in a brave new online world, but is it too much to ask for some kind of label on those types of columns, as newspapers do with their Opinion pages?
November 10, 2006, at 11:20 am
Jeffrey,
I agree that the question of whether to mention the protester is open. I just thought it INTERESTING how the three different folks covered it. Also, though Greenhouse’s story was written with the purpose of describing the scene that day so I think she could have mentioned it. Also, her story fell apart a bit toward the end so I think she should have included it rather than falling into the weeds. But that’s just my opinion and I certainly don’t begrudge her for a different news judgment.
Anyway, also agreed on Lithwick not being a mainstream reporter. Still, she does appear in a lot of mainstream outlets such as the WashPost and NPR and the lines there are a bit blurred.
I’m still in shock that the WashPost would purchase liberal Slate without any compunction. It’s just weird to me.
November 10, 2006, at 11:26 am
I’ve read “Get Religion” for quite sometime. Just thought I would tell you how much I enjoy your work. You really have a good site.
November 10, 2006, at 12:43 pm
Thank you, Jim!
November 10, 2006, at 10:01 pm
Mollie, thanks for the link to http://www.getreligion.org/?page_id=986. It’s a fascinating read on how the New York Times has chosen to report on partial-birth abortion for over a decade.