Today, New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan issued a response to the criticism leveled by Kerr and others. She did her best to defend the piece, but facts are facts, and Sullivan was ultimately forced to concede that “the overall impression it left may well have overstated the case.” No kidding.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. The New York Times has a long history of publishing misleading negative items about Justice Thomas. For example, early in Thomas’ tenure on the Court, the Times famously described Justice Antonin Scalia as Thomas’ “apparent mentor,” a cheap shot designed to portray Thomas as an intellectual lightweight. Yet as we now know, Thomas has been the one influencing Scalia—an influence that Scala himself has repeatedly acknowledged. Yet the demonstrably false notion of Thomas as Scalia’s “sidekick” continues to persist in many quarters of the American left.
I realize that Clarence Thomas’ legal views are unpopular among many of the reporters and editors who work at The New York Times. But their bias against him is no excuse for this sort of specious journalism.