Ruth Marcus’ criticism of Alito is hypocritical given her support for Totenberg’s work.

Washington Post Editor Criticizes Justice ⁢Alito

Washington Post Editor Ruth Marcus recently criticized Justice Samuel Alito for his recent interviews and opinion ​article defending himself from attacks on the Supreme Court. Marcus ‌finds Alito’s actions “unseemly⁤ and unsettling,”⁣ suggesting they compromise⁤ his neutrality​ as a justice. However, her criticism is hypocritical⁢ and lacks ‌substance.

“There is ‍something unseemly and unsettling about Alito’s repeated use of‌ the ⁢Journal⁣ — part therapy⁢ couch, part bullhorn.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on the other hand,⁣ had a close relationship with Nina Totenberg, NPR’s ⁣Supreme Court correspondent. Ginsburg frequently gave interviews to Totenberg, discussing her life, jurisprudence, and promoting​ her ⁣books. Totenberg even provided Ginsburg with ‌interview questions in advance. These ​interviews seem to fit the description of “part therapy couch, part bullhorn” more than Alito’s op-eds.

The Double Standard

Despite Ginsburg’s close ties with Totenberg, Marcus shows no concern for the ethical implications. In fact, she provided a glowing blurb⁢ for Totenberg’s book, praising their friendship. This double ⁣standard in journalism is concerning ​and reveals‍ a bias against conservative justices.

Revelations⁢ from ​Totenberg’s Book

Totenberg’s book uncovers even more about her relationship with Ginsburg. They were deeply intertwined in each other’s lives for nearly fifty years. Ginsburg’s husband,⁢ Marty, asked Totenberg ⁣to contribute to a birthday album for RBG, and Ginsburg even officiated Totenberg’s second⁤ wedding. Ginsburg consistently extended invitations and support to Totenberg, creating a bond‌ that went beyond a professional relationship.

Furthermore, ⁣Totenberg had insights ​into ‌Ginsburg’s ‌health that she did not disclose to the ⁢public. She cut ⁣short an interview because she ⁣sensed something was wrong with Ginsburg, and her husband supervised a ‌biopsy that revealed Ginsburg’s cancerous tumors. Totenberg also implies that Ginsburg shared confidential information from ⁤the justices’‍ conferences with her.

The Selective Outrage

Marcus’s selective outrage ‌is evident in her praise for Totenberg’s book while criticizing Alito’s defense in The Wall Street Journal. This bias undermines the public’s trust‍ in the Supreme Court⁢ and highlights the rot in American journalism. It is essential to call out this dangerous propaganda and hold journalists accountable‍ for their double standards.