2006-01-12 - 5:53 p.m.
A note I sent National Public Radio today:
I was very disappointed with the unhelpfulness of the Alito hearing coverage today. It showed bias but, worse, journalistic laziness.
I should say, I'm a liberal and I'm sure Alito would not back many of my stances. That said, there were two instances your reporters kept repeating on Morning Edition and All Things Considered that I found very frustrating.
1) On CAP. You kept referring to his employment letter as "bragging" that he was in CAP. First of all, I think it somewhat hard to "brag" in writing, as it is more about tone than content. Additionally, when you consider that job letters are the one socially acceptable place for open bragging, the language would have to be very strong to call it bragging in that context.
It would have helped for you to simply read the text of what he wrote. I never heard you do that, today or yesterday.
2) On Vanguard. I too was suspicious that the case he ruled on involving Vanguard could actually have any impact on the value of his mutual funds. Do your reporters understand that not all cases against companies will necessarily benefit or harm a company's value? Do they know how to tell the difference? In this case it is even more important, because it sounded like he didn't so much own an interest in Vanguard, but in their funds - which is something else entirely. It would have helped for this to be clarified, but even more helpful if you would have simply stated what the case was about so your listeners could decide whether or not they agreed with the Senator who stated he had nothing to gain or lose by ruling on the case.
GO! My Web Site GO!
