Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Lawbeat

Legal News

: Lawbeat

Did Greenhouse overstep an imaginary line?

By Mark Obbie

Does a retired journalist hurt the reputation of her successors by taking a partisan policy role in the field that she previously covered? That's the question that troubles me when I hear that former New York Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse has joined the board of the American Constitution Society, the liberal legal think tank. It's easy to dismiss my question. But I'm not wondering if she has the right to do this, or whether it comes as no surprise to her critics. Instead, I worry that by allowing herself to stake out a position on matters that she covered for the Times not long ago -- and that her immediate successor must cover in a hateful environment where critics see partisan bias in everything that the Times does -- Greenhouse diminishes the newspaper's ability to defend itself against such claims.It's not an easy issue (and I'm not being coy by expressing it as a question -- I truly am undecided). There are many factors and questions:

• I respect Greenhouse's intellect and skills as an analyst, and her freedom to express herself freely in her new life as a scholar and teacher.
• I don't know if board membership equates to personal expression of opinion on each and every issue.
• I see the impracticality of expecting journalists to continue a monkish existence even after they're off the payroll.
• I recognize that I'm at the extreme end of the spectrum on questions of journalistic neutrality (during last fall's presidential campaign, I chastised my wife for letting slip in conversation with friends how I intended to vote, and I've never bought the notions that reporters must be able to take policy and political stands as private citizens, or that everyone's a political animal and hiding it is disingenuous).
• I also acknowledge that practically no other retired reporter is as closely identified with her former beat, or is as much a lightning rod, as Greenhouse. So perhaps this is not a grand policy question but instead a peculiar circumstance.

But still ... I think it's an occasion for journalists to give thought to the issue, rather than simply shrug today's headline off as meaningless or predictable.

Full post as published by Lawbeat on March 20, 2009 (boomark / email).