It's Good to be Back-- Or Not
As you can tell, I am back from a mini-vacation that was made even more mini by the dramatic developments in the JonBenet Ramsey murder investigation. But it's good to be back. Did I miss anything else? I mean, besides the important but colossally under-covered ruling by U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor striking down the White House's domestic surveillance program?
Not surprisingly, the Ramsey story sucked the air out of every other legal story last week. And the vortex of news-nothingness continued through the weekend and into this morning with breathless reporting and an all-time new low in legal reportage-- bulletins about what the suspect, John Mark Karr, ate and drank on his long flight from Thailand to California. What's next, updates on his bathroom schedule? There is absolutely nothing legally significant about the fact that Karr ate grilled prawns and pate on his flight-- but the menu on Thai Airways sure does put those dry, stale turkey-and-cheese sandwiches we get on domestic flights to shame, doesn't it?
Speaking of shame, it really is too bad (and an indictment of the current state of our media) that more attention wasn't devoted to the NSA story even though Judge Taylor's ruling clearly will not stand in its entirety on appeal. The news was big nonetheless because her order represents the first official, formal and legally-binding (for now) declaration by the judicial branch of the constitutionality (or unconstitutionality) of the spy program. And it is the likelihood of adverse rulings like this-- more are sure to come-- that has prompted the White House and its allies in Congress, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, to try to work out some sort of a compromise on the NSA program so that the whole thing doesn't get scrapped by the judiciary before it can be fixed by the other two branches.
By Andrew Cohen |
August 21, 2006; 12:00 PM ET
Previous: What if Karr is a Stool Pigeon, Too? |
Next: Paging Tom Wolfe
Posted by: JerryG | August 21, 2006 03:15 PM
*Sound of air still being sucked out of blog.*
Posted by: attorneyofrecord | August 21, 2006 06:21 PM
It's time to apologize to your readers - all ten of them.
Posted by: AttorneyatLaw | August 21, 2006 10:35 PM
wow. harsh words from all. Even if John Karr proves not to be the right person, does that mean that the Ramseys are not owed an apology? Just compare the difference in reporting pre-karr and post-karr. DNA evidence in the case prior to Karr has always been reported to be diluted, mixed, too small to matter. People anxious to convict the Ramseys dismissed it as inconsequential. Suddenly the sample is plentiful and holds the key to the mystery.
The Ramseys were owed an apology a long time ago..probably when a judge declared that it was more likely that an intruder committed the crime than not..this should just serve as the latest reminder of that injustice.
Posted by: kc | August 22, 2006 01:21 PM
C'mon stop picking on Andrew.
Let me repeat again the rules of this blog.
I think you will find it helpful and will avoid some of the needless criticisms.
The Cohen method is to do a lazy, cursory search of the wire services and make up some off-the-cuff opinon that will be instantly contradicted by actual facts or further developments in a case.
These strongly worded but unsupportable opinions are just a temporary rickety scaffold over which Cohen can proclaim that his heroes (e.g. Muslim extremists or the Ramseys) are getting railroaded by the US government.
Since the primary goal here is to generate a lot of posts, not accuracy, Andrew recommends that you don't get hung up on factual details in his work.
Remember, there is no oversight here by WAPO so anything goes.
If Andrew gets called on his inaccuracies, he will just obscure it with a subsequent contradictory posting.
Posted by: Andrew's assistant | August 22, 2006 11:57 PM
Warning! Sancimony Meter is reading 97.485.
Posted by: CT | August 25, 2006 03:34 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Cute.
But do you *really* believe that stale jokes about airline food will serve to gloss over your startlingly smug pot-kettle-black entry from 8/18, or the blithe attempt to ignore it from only this morning?
Bloggers who utilize comments - which demonstrates that they understand the form and are articulate and honest enough to confront their critics in near-real time - need to understand that ignoring their biases and mis-steps inevitably leads to distrust from their readers. This is why "MSM" writers who do not acknowledge blatant missteps drive their readers crazy - and ultimately drive them away.
What you are attempting is much worse.
You plainly jumped to conclusions yourself by calling those who "studied" this 10-yr-old case a "lynch mob" who "clearly rushed to judgement", although the folks that believed in the culpability of the Ramseys had sifted through at least 2 years of investagation, and you had learned of this new "suspect" at most 2 days before your own rush to judgement. In the ensuing time, while you were on vacation, this "suspect's" story began leaking like a sieve.
You very-cleary owe your own readers an apology. No explanation is necessary. It was an all-too-human error. But trying to gloss over your hypocritical reaction will only devalue your standing, and make you outstandingly disingenuous.
Which I hope you are not.