CNN trumpeted month-old news of Alito abortion memo; dragged feet in covering newly released memo suggesting Alito supports warrantless wiretaps
SUMMARY: CNN reported the release of a 1985 memorandum in which Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. advocated overturning Roe v. Wade; however, the document was the same as a June 3, 1985, memo released by the archives more than three weeks ago. While CNN covered this memo extensively during the first three hours after the story broke, it waited more than four and a half hours to cover a newly released 1984 document in which Alito defended the government's power to order warrantless domestic wiretaps.
On December 23, CNN reported the release of a 1985 memorandum in which Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. advocated overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide. But the document CNN hyped, in fact, was the same as a June 3, 1985, memo originally released by the National Archives on November 30 laying out Alito's strategy of slowly eroding abortion rights and received extensive media coverage at the time.
But while CNN mentioned the abortion memo seven times during the first three hours after it was first reported by the Associated Press, CNN waited more than four and a half hours to report on a newly released 1984 document in which Alito defended the government's power to order warrantless domestic wiretaps.
The AP reported that the abortion memos were the same at 10:42 a.m. ET. CNN did not report it until 11:31 a.m. ET. Neither AP nor CNN noted their prior errors in having reported the abortion memo as newly released.
By contrast, while the AP broke the story on the wiretapping memo by 11:31 a.m. ET, CNN mentioned it for the first time at 4:10 p.m. ET on The Situation Room. In that memo, the AP reported, Alito "defended the right of government officials to order domestic wiretaps."
CNN's highlighting of an old memo while largely ignoring a newly released memo that goes to the heart of a major Bush administration scandal raises a question: which memo would the Bush administration prefer the media to focus on -- an already released memo previously reported extensively in the press, or a memo that suggests Alito shares the administration's controversial views on a subject over which Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have sharply criticized President Bush?
So the mainstream media is about a month behind the blogs (in the event that they actually do print a story). Why the hell was this suddenly a story? If we could figure that out, maybe we could get them to actually cover the rest of the news. A month late is better than nothing.
NOW IS THIS THE SAME CNN WHO SHOWED AN ABC POLL THAT SAID BUSH POLL NUMBERS WERE GETTING BETTER, BUT DIDN'T SHOW THERE OWN CNN POLL SAYING BUSH POLL NUMBERS REALLY HAVEN'T CHANGED THAT MUCH!!!
The Rightwing claim MAJORITY SUPPORT for getting rid of Abortion Rights.
Why doesn't Alito just be honest? Why doesn't he proudly adopt the Republican's primary position that Roe was "wrongly decided", and should be overturned?
If it's really the POPULAR position, why do the Rightwingers run away from it, when the forum is perfect for taking a principled stand?
Answer: Anti-Abortion is a LOSER position. It is unpopular, and held only by zealots on the fringe. Therefore, they KNOW they can only acheive their goal by STEALTH jurists, who deny their true feelings, and hope to gain positions on the bench through fraud and deception. THEN ... they will make their unpopular changes to the LAW.
CNN prefers to harp on one 'Alito memo' over another; more specifically, they prefer to frame their reporting of Judge Alito's qualifications to the Supreme Judicial Court, in terms of the subject matter of one 'Alito memo' over the subject matter of another 'Alito memo' .
This preference of 'memos' serves to remind us all:
that the administration would prefer to advance their nominee to the Supreme Judicial Court, on the basis of his 'presumed opinion' on the basis of one particular matter; a matter of intensely personal concern (to those persons to whom it concerns), made into a matter of political discourse, purely on the basis of the intensely personal response that is provoked, by the invoking of this matter; by the invoking of the word that signifies this matter.
I say on the basis of his 'presumed opinion', because that is just what such an invocation of that 'memo' is supposed to raise: a presumption; without explicitly stating an opinion, but implicitly suggesting one; raising a presumption; and this presumption is meant to be raised in the minds of those most easily provoked on this matter: the congregation; and the congregation's bearing on this matter, is read in their telegrams and e-mails, is heard in their hollerings and shouts, is seen on their placards and in their rallies on the courthouse steps, and is inevitably felt as pressure, upon those whom it is brought to bear; a pressure meant specifically to advance the nominee through the confirmation procedings...
...and so on this matter, on the subject matter of one of the 'Alito memos', we have that memo's invocation, and it's resulting provocation, and the congregation, and the pressure they do bring, all as one and the same thing; for one and the same cause: to advance this nominee, this administration's nominee, to the Supreme Judicial Court of these United States.
And if that doesn't serve as a reminder to what you already know; to what tack this administration will take, and to what tactics this administration does use; then there never was any such a reminder as that; then there never was any such memo as this.
Or rather avoids getting to the real substance that deserves debate.
Every report about Alito that I saw was focused on his abortion stance and not on the far more serious positions he's adopted. (And I do take abortion rights seriously.) He's anti-civil rights and pro-corporate all the way. I don't want to discuss abortion rights anymore. Been there, done that. In fact, I'm sure those who oppose abortion rights might just be saying, "Great! Good man! Confirm him." Would they feel the same way if they knew the truth? I wonder.