As liberal Justice Elena Kagan takes her place on the Supreme Court next week, she could thank The New York Times
for making her confirmation process smoother. Ever since Ronald Reagan
nominated Robert Bork and he was rejected by the Senate in 1987 for his
views and not his character or qualifications, confirmation battles for
liberals have become less like judicial seminars and more like
political campaigns.
For almost 20 years, in this new era of activist
groups and activist reporters, The New York Times has
covered Supreme Court fights with a heavy finger on the scales of
justice, tipping the balance. They have painted conservatives as highly
controversial and dangerously ideological, while liberal nominees were
presented as "brilliant" moderates who were only newsworthy in that
they were often laudably "historic" choices, or, in Kagan's case, she
was not only "brilliant," but "very funny, warm and witty."
Times Watch
analyzed the arc of coverage over the last two decades and the last
seven Supreme Court justices, from Clarence Thomas's nomination in 1991
to Elena Kagan's confirmation in 2010, and found stark differences in
how the Times reported on the four Justices nominated by Democrats
versus the three nominated by Republicans.
Times Watch examined every substantive New York Times
news story on each nomination, starting with the official presidential
announcement and ending with the Senate vote confirming the nominee to
the Supreme Court. Among the findings:
A stark pro-Democratic double standard in labeling:
The Times demonstrated a 10-1 disparity in labeling "conservative" justices nominated by Republicans compared to "liberal" ones nominated by Democrats.
In all, the three Republican-nominated justices were labeled "conservative" 105 times, while the four justices nominated by Democrats were labeled liberal on just 14 occasions.
Two dueling headlines demonstrate the Times' slanted reporting in a nutshell. On June 27, 1993, The New York Times greeted Democrat Bill Clinton's nominee, the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project and a strong defender of unrestricted abortion rights, as a moderate: "Balanced Jurist at Home in the Middle." On July 28, 2005, the Times welcomed Republican George W. Bush's nomination of John Roberts, a former associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan, by summing up his judicial philosophy: "An Advocate for the Right."
A vast difference in intensity of coverage:
Besides
the slant in labeling, there was a vast difference in the volume and
intensity of coverage of conservative nominees compared to those on the
left. While conservative nominations are cast as feverish battles over
ideology and the future trend of the court, the Times withholds the
drama and controversy when it comes to Democrats. The paper has done
its best to drain the drama from Democratic nomination fights, pushing
them as foregone conclusions.
Republican nominees received intense coverage. Clarence Thomas was the subject of 81 stories through his initial hearings - not including the massive coverage after law professor Anita Hill made her unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations. John Roberts was the subject of 107 stories, Samuel Alito 92.
Democratic nominees received far less coverage. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's nomination was featured in a flimsy 22 Times stories, while Clinton's other pick Stephen Breyer was dealt with in a mere 20 stories. Obama nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a partial exception to the rule with 85 stories, but many of those keyed on the fact Sotomayor was a hometown pick. Elena Kagan also failed to excite interest, featuring in only 43 stories.
Even taking into account that fewer stories for Democratic nominees should on average result in fewer ideological labels, the disparity was still sharp. While Democratic nominees were labeled liberal an average of once every 12 stories, Republican nominees were tagged conservative once every 2.66 stories. For instance, while Clarence Thomas was tagged conservative at an average rate of roughly once in every two stories (44 labels out of 81 stories), Sonia Sotomayor received a liberal label just once in every 17 stories (5 labels out of 85 stories).
The
study concludes that a crucial part of the "confirmation process" is
the journalism that is committed (or omitted) by national newspapers
like the Times. Newspaper reporters and editors aren't writing
the first draft of history. They're trying to make history happen with
a happy ending for liberals.
You can begin reading the full report here [1], or read a formatted PDF version here [2].