Where is Linda Greenhouse when you need her?!?!?!

I know, retired. But COME ON New York Times, this MUST be the lamest excuse for an article about the Supreme Court EVER.

Does it mention the grounds for these 11 rejected death row appeals? Well, yes, but just one. (Ooooh — on the 4th or 5th reading I realize that these were ALL cruel and unusual 8th amendment claims based on the lethal injection method being too painful).

Does it go into such detail that the average reader stops caring about the individual defendants? Hmmm . . . let’s see:

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away appeals from 11 death row prisoners in seven states, including one who killed his adoptive parents and continued to live in their home as their bodies decomposed, then cleaned up the scene so he could have a party for friends.

Yes. That makes me not care much about the guy.

Does it make me think about state killing (a la Sarat) or the implications for the states financially or morally? Ummm . . . no.

So that would be a zero for content, a minus one for deatials with no context and a minus one for getting us to think about the bigger issues. David, call the NYT right now — they must have an opening because if they keep this yahoo I’ll stop even checking their website.


4 Responses to Where is Linda Greenhouse when you need her?!?!?!

  1. dspett says:

    The article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/washington/21cnd-scotus.html) is written by David Stout, one of the guys on their “continuous news desk,” which you can see from the “cnd” in the URL. CND reporters are supposed to work fast on breaking news and aren’t expected to be experts on the issue they’re writing about (hence the lack of context). The story is supposed to be updated throughout the day, and supposedly they will have the SCOTUS reporter (it looks like Liptak is sort of getting eased into it, with Greenhouse not quite out the door yet, so I bet it’ll be one of them) writing something for the next day’s paper to be posted in the evening. Most likely this will disappear from the site in the next few hours, replaced by something better.

  2. laurabethnielsen says:

    All is forgiven with the excellent interactive tool they have up right now where you can slide Hillary’s percent not-so-super delegates and it shows you what percent of the super-delegates she would have to win. I LOVE the NYT online!!

  3. dspett says:

    Yeah, so I was wrong: the story by Greenhouse/Liptak never happened, and the Stout story remained. I’m not sure whether it ended up in the print edition (anybody with a copy?). But, I have no doubt that the quality of the NYT will go down with the 100 buyouts/layoffs of reporters, and this might be one of the first signs of it. It amounts to a good 15% of the staff. Ouch.

  4. dspett says:

    I concur with LB that the interactive delegate counter is pretty sweet

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: