How Many Supreme Court Justices Must Deny NPR's Reporting Before Media Outlets Believe Them?
John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Sonia Sotomayor have all denied Nina Totenberg's story about a SCOTUS dispute over masking.

Want to hear some gossip? Lately, rumors have been flying, especially rumors concerning a notoriously secretive and imperious institution: the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court has recently heard several important cases relating to the Biden administration's vaccine mandates for private sector workers and health care workers—but members of the public who closely followed the oral arguments might have noticed that Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not appear in person; she participated virtually, from her chambers.
Sotomayor is one of the more COVID-cautious justices, owing to an underlying health condition, diabetes. She usually wears a mask, and has decided to wait out the omicron variant. That's her right, of course—the justice should do whatever is best for her health.
But according to media reports, Sotomayor was specifically concerned about appearing in person due to a colleague's failure to wear a mask. Chief Justice John Roberts asked the other justices to wear masks, but Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch allegedly refused.
NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg made that claim in a bombshell report earlier this week. She wrote:
According to court sources, Sotomayor did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked. Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other justices to mask up.
They all did. Except Gorsuch, who, as it happens, sits next to Sotomayor on the bench. His continued refusal since then has also meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices' weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone.
This revelation prompted widespread denunciation of Gorsuch, who has authored a book called A Republic, If You Can Keep It that laments the loss of civility in public discourse and in politics.
How could a man who decries that political actors no longer treat each other with basic decency refuse to wear a mask for the immunocompromised colleague who sits next to him? Obviously, that would be hypocritical.
But here's the problem: NPR's reporting is now being challenged.
First, Fox News' Shannon Bream did some digging of her own, and her SCOTUS sources said the report was untrue—Gorsuch did not refuse a request to mask up.
Dueling news stories—one from the progressive mainstream, another from a right-leaning outlet—are hard to adjudicate. But the Supreme Court made it easier for us. Yesterday, Gorsuch and Sotomayor released a joint statement putting the rumor to bed:
"Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us. It is false. While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends."
Did that dispel the story? Not quite. Progressive activist Charlotte Clymer called it a dodge, because technically NPR had reported that Roberts, acting on behalf of Sotomayor, asked Gorsuch to mask up, not Sotomayor. I guess we'll never know for sure…but wait! The chief justice released a statement as well. In it, he unequivocally states that he did not ask Gorsuch to wear a mask.
I think a rational person should consider this case closed. If you really want to believe that Roberts, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor herself are all lying about this, fine. Go right ahead. But when all sides of an alleged dispute deny that it took place, and they are generally reputable people, and all we have to the contrary is anonymous sourcing, it's pretty clear how we should generally feel about it.
To some extent, the damage was already done, however. The NPR story was repeated far and wide, by Newsweek, by The Daily Beast, by MSNBC and CNN, Politico, USA Today, Business Insider, and on and on.
Beyond the outlets themselves, reporters across the corporate press pushed out the story, too.
Here's just a smattering from @CNN's @jimsciutto and @edlavaCNN, @politico's @JonLemire and @NPR's @davidgura pic.twitter.com/rGdounXXbB
— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) January 20, 2022
The New York Times' Jamelle Bouie smeared Gorsuch as "an impossibly callous guy with poisonous levels of self-regard." And that was one of the more polite descriptions. If you want to read others, check out this thread by the conservative writer Drew Holden, who, as always, has the receipts.
????THREAD????
An explosive story from @NPR and @NinaTotenberg about supposed high drama around masking at the Supreme Court imploded today.
I want to take you through how misinformation like this gets mainstreamed by the corporate press and others.
Start here ⤵️
— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) January 20, 2022
I have to wonder how many people will have seen the initial story, but miss the important clarifying information. I have to wonder how many others will lose faith in the media over a botched story like this—or have already lost faith, due to the sheer frequency with which poorly and anonymously sourced stories are pushed by the media, and then fall apart days later.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So only a damn fool would give any credence to NPR or Ms. Totenberg.
Just wondering - has anyone checked with Justice Thomas about her reporting credibility?
Sad but true. NPR used to at least pretend to support reason and objectivity. Now both news and frivolous entertainment shows are progressive circle-jerks. I once consistently enjoyed Wait Wait Don't Tell Me, but when I tried to listen recently I heard what sounded like a bunch of cackling twenty-somethings (OK, maybe forty-somethings) making middle school snipes about deplorables.
I also suspect that many people like me were led along by NPR, and still give them credence.
For two decades I was a NPR / PBS fan; they seemed to be the only source I could access daily for detailed, apparently balanced reporting.
Then this thing call the internet came along, and I found I had more options, and groups like Cato were no longer so dependent on the occasional appearance on McNeil-Lehrer, but could be found as a freestanding source and forum of their own.
Within a couple of years, the scales fell from my eyes, and my cash stopped flowing to National Progressive Radio and Perpetual British Snobery.
And yet, Nina natters on!
Same here: I used to listen to NPR/PBS a lot. I was also a registered Democrat.
I think all those institutions used to have an actual diversity of people representing all sorts of different opinions. But the conservatives, moderates, and libertarians all got pushed out, left for greener pastures, or retired, and the only people left are ignorant, intolerant, bigoted leftists.
Think about it this way: in the age of the Internet, if you have any skills, why in the world would you work at a sh*thole like NPR, PBS, NYT, or WaPo? Only the bottom of the barrel in terms of education and skills works for those institutions anymore, people with no other choice of gainful employment.
Same here: devoted listener for nearly 25 years; of course they salivated over all things Clinton and it was that gross level of bias that finally did it for me in 2016. Seems they’ve only gotten worse
Sadly a lot of us are in the same boat. I always considered myself a centrist, an independent but my views are now labeled as far-right by all the old legacy media propagandists. Simply wanting honest ballot boxes is labeled anti-freedom. Insane. The fools have been revealed as never before because of the internet age. I knew them when Dan Rather took over CBS from Walter Cronkite and began the campaign to over-throw the 2nd Amendment. As we've seen from their new incarnations such as U-tube, Facebook and Twitter they want to overthrow the 1st as well. Censorship of others good, orange man bad. Let's face it the progressive/liberal left has decided that the Republic itself is in their way.
Perhaps Dan Rather was the unnamed source.
Maybe Bill Burkett and Mary Mapes will come out of retirement with "found" memos to back up the narrative.
When I first started listening, her connections and credentials seemed pretty impressive. That was before reality TV and people like Kim Kardashian could get rich and famous for having really no particular talent at all. Suddenly, Nina Totenberg seemed way less impressive.
There are a lot of damn fools out there.
"Progressive mainstream?"...certaintly your joking right?
NPR and Nina have been far left bolsheviks forever. And the rest of the "mainstream" outlets you mention are just the same. Anti-American pro-communist pos. I don't get why Reason "wokes" don't get that..these are the enemy not the Von Mises Caucus.
With the nonsense she's been spouting, Sotomayor's mouth should be covered with duct tape, not a cloth mask.
be nice. eleventy million children have covid
And died from it. Twice.
Science-denying anti-vaxx MAGAt parents took their maskless children to "Covid parties", serving them horse paste cake and aquarium cleaner punch, upon the deadly misinformation they'd get so-called "natural immunity".
Now try saying that without the crossed eyes and all the drooling.
Depends on the topic. Her decision today seemed pretty appropriate. The only dissent was on the threshold question of whether the issues had been preserved below.
I trust Nina Totenberg's reporting over the self-serving performative comity of the Nazgul.
SCOTUS is more acutely afraid the fragility of legitimacy is than the people are even remotely aware of. The people don't fully realize that a body of nine unelected lifetime appointees makes all of our law for us these days, and they don't even have an army.
It's just a shame that the decent ones have to run interference for the psychopathic monsters, though I guess we should be grateful they're not all psychopathic monsters, given their unchecked power.
If you think they don't have an army, you aren't reading any news reports.
"I trust Nina Totenberg's reporting over the self-serving performative comity of the Nazgul."
Tony believes hearsay from the Nazgul, but doesn't believe the actual words from the Nazgul. Why? Um, probably because the hearsay is what he wants to hear.
"It's just a shame that the decent ones have to run interference for the psychopathic monsters, "
Are you saying that being vaxxed, boostered, and tested each morning then declining to mask makes you a psychopathic monster?
This is a new level of idiocy even for you, Tony.
You crack me up. Keep being you.
At least Tony is honest with his views unlike the others here like jeff and Mike.
This is akin to staying after the game was lost, making a few baskets when the other team is gone and claiming victory.
That works for ballots - - - - - - - - - - - -
lol
When SCOTUS doesn’t let the meaning of the highest law in the land change with the evolution of language without a single vote: that’s tyranny.
#blueanon
Brilliant take as always.
“My narrative is more important to me than actual information”. LOL.
Holy shit. Starting to paint with all sorts of crazy, aren't you?
"The lack of proof IS the proof" --- Tony
Yeah, I suspect Totenberg got it right, too. I’m surprised at the “libertarians” here taking Roberts’s word for it.
Even if statements by individual Justices are just "comity", they do indicate an understanding that we need the Court as a bulwark against Executive and Legislative excess from both the left and the right. Better to take one for the team, than bring down the whole Republic.
The Roberts court has made it quite clear that one of its most important missions is justifying its own power, sure.
Ektewelly .... Roberts did not "unequivocally state that he did not ask Gorsuch to wear a mask", he added some weasel words like "from the bench" or similar. Of course, a lawyer does not add unnecessary words, so they must have been weasel words, and the original NPR report used its own weasel words "of some sort" or some such (my own weasel words, because I am not interested in finding the exact quote).
So it's all a big conspiracy. I personally blame the Supreme Court PR flack, who has bribed NPR Roberts to gin up awareness of the Supreme Court.
Oh bosh. NPR and Roberts. Bother.
Wholly mackerel! I seem to have implied that I agree with Tony!
Even if this story is true, it merely makes Sotomayor look like a crazy idiot.
The SCotUS justices are vaxxed, boostered and tested every morning before going into the chambers. If you insist that despite all that they still mask, then you are simply crazy.
Yes, it's funny how vital the vax is, until it isn't good enough, in fact so poor that a mask is better.
It isn't even the vaccine. They are tested literally before walking into the chamber. They have confirmed that they don't have the virus.
As I read all of this, the impression I get is that despite these safeguards, Sotomayor is still not comfortable being around unmasked people, and so she stayed home. That doesn't make Gorsuch an asshole. He is already doing many things- including shoving sticks up his nose- to accommodate her condition. It makes her extra cautious (someone less charitable might call her irrational).
Someone is seeing this situation and imputing that there was an actual request and a refusal, when in fact there is none.
It proves that they don't test positive, not that they don't have the virus.
You can test negative and still play the role of Typhoid Mary.
"You can test negative and still play the role of Typhoid Mary."
This is not proven at all. PCR tests are designed to detect tiny, tiny levels of the virus. For example, in a 30 run PCR test, 1 single virus is replicated into about 500 Million individual DNA strands- which goes to many billion if you go to 40 cycles. It is extremely sensitive.
While you *may* be infected, the likelihood that a PCR test is negative and that you are yet still infectious is statistically zero.
While the tests are generally that sensitive, there has been an issue with Omicron in particular, where if you just swab the nasal passages, and not the throat, your test can miss an infection, because this variant apparently sometimes never makes it up to the sinuses, and the one way flow of mucus is pretty good at keeping virus particles out of the sinuses if they don't originate there.
It's an issue that can be resolved with the proper swabbing technique, but it's not guaranteed they're using that technique.
Sotomayor? Irrational? Knock me over with a feather. BTW, is irrational a synonym or antonym of "wise Latina"?
When the justices are hearing arguments, aren't the attorneys for plaintiff and respondent and a transcriptionist present?
Do they still allow members of the public to sit as observers on a first come first seated basis?
Or, sotomayor is a cowardly dunce?
You can still catch the disease and spread it, even if you're vaxxed.
"What's the purpose of the vax, then?" I hear my carefully crafted strawman ask.
IF you catch COVID, it's a slightly more mild form of the disease, the sharpest corners having been slightly dulled by some 1200 grit sandpaper.
The adding of “slightly” is purely your spin.
And just because there is now an omicron variant doesn’t mean other variants have disappeared.
It doesn't necessarily follow, but it's pretty common for a new virus to pretty much take over and older versions disappear. Happens with various flus all the time. And that does seem to be happening with omicron. Which is great news.
Mikey doesn't understand evolution and "survival of the fittest". The fittest variants are those which propagate more, and killing hosts slows down propagation. The more benign, the easier it spreads. The more a benign variant spreads, the more it crowds out the more malignant variants.
"The more a benign variant spreads, the more it crowds out the more malignant variants."
You do realize this doesn't conflict with my statement: "And just because there is now an omicron variant doesn’t mean other variants have disappeared."
You do realize you haven't said anything.
Well, maybe not.
Actually, it does mean just that, or at least general evolutionary principles would suggest it. Unless something has changed since I took an overview course on the subject, I thought the concept was that there is generally only one organism for each environmental niche, with the more with simple evolution choosing the winner.
That's definitely how it works. And now that most places are seeing well over 90% of the positive cases being the Omicron variant, it appears to be working just like that.
It's not hard for Omicron to be 90% of the positive cases, even if Delta is still around. Omicron is reaching prevailance levels that the previous variants never got anywhere near, so peak Omicron can easily be 10 or more times non-peak Delta.
The thing is, one of the reasons Omicron is propagating so freely is that infection by prior variants doesn't much prevent you from getting Omicron. (Though it does reduce severity.) This works in both directions, you shouldn't expect infection with Omicron to prevent someone from getting Delta. They're just that immunologically different.
The denigration of "slightly" is purely your spin. Works both ways, bub.
It really doesn't. Diane Reynold (Paul.) added a subjective modifier describing how bad she? (he?) thinks the vaccine reduces the symptoms of omicron variant. I have made no such assessment; I just pointed out that her's? (his?) is based on no actual basis.
It really does. You added your own qualifier. A qualifier is a qualifier, negative or positive.
You are right. "Slightly" is no longer "purely" her (his?) subjective qualifier; you seem to be using it, too.
You always appear when anyone questions your faith. And face it, fear based faith is all you have.
Replace vaccine with "blood of Christ" and variants with "Legion" and there you are.
It isn't faith. And I am not fearful.
I'm just countering Diane's persistent efforts to spread FUD about the vaccines with quite mainstream facts.
I see your many facts present in your citations you have offered.
And ill laugh when you post 9 month old studies in response if you actually do provide a citation.
Just for the record, myself and some of my family members have gotten COVID. Me, my cousin, and his wife, and his stepkid are vaxxed. My cousin and his family recovered in less than a week.
My three-year-old had the worst of it--bad fever, coughs, and earaches. My nine-year-old got over it in 3 days. She has an autoimmune disease and is unvaxxed. I'm vaxxed (not boosted yet, I actually had an appointment this week to get it before this put it on hold)--I'm mainly just dealing with fatigue right now, which isn't even that bad, just feel like taking a quick nap. Before then, I had a fever and chills. Nothing that Nyquil didn't help. My wife and middle child are unvaxxed and negative, although I'm pretty sure they had it because they were showing very mild symptoms, too.
Bottom line--the "vax" doesn't prevent you from getting COVID. It's just a therapeutic.
Why is it spin? How sick were people who didn't go to the hospital with out a lot of antecdotal stories? Btw I've got one if we're going to go that way, a guy I know well was brought back after not breathing from vid but thanks the vax for saving his life. Are we sure it wouldn't have been the same without? Seems like it.
I'm not sure if you are following what the "spin" discussion is about. Can you state your understanding of what precisely Diane? (Paul?) said that I called "spin".
Should he explain why the sky is blue while he’s at it? Goddamn you’re a tedious, sea lioning little git.
Please provide a cite to some basis for saying the vaccine makes omicron "slightly" more mild.
Why the hell would anyone provide cites per your "request" when you never provide them yourself?
I do, all the time.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00090-3/fulltext
"The mild to moderate course of illness suggests that full vaccination followed by a booster dose still provides good protection against severe disease caused by omicron."
That's a seven person study.
I don't see Diane or alphabet providing ANY cite, whatsoever.
So a useless citation counts in your book? Yet you dismissed well published doctors merely for appearing on Rogan despite them giving dozens of citations in their interviews?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/11/who-says-omicron-is-life-threatening-for-unvaccinated-elderly-underlying-conditions.html
"Dr. Mike Ryan, director of the WHO’s health emergencies program, said unvaccinated people face a higher risk that an omicron infection will make them severely sick and and possibly even kill them.
“'Omicron still represents a massive threat to their life and a massive threat to their health,' Ryan said of the unvaccinated during a Q&A livestreamed Tuesday on the WHO’s social media channels.
"Ryan said vaccinated people, on the other hand, generally experience mild illness if they get a breakthrough infection."
Mike an article that uses the word's "massive threat" when IFR is .26% leaves me with doubts also.
I don't see Diane or alphabet providing ANY cite, whatsoever.
Your citation was a doctors opinion. You've dismissed Dr Malone and Dr McCullough who have much more impressive resumes for their opinions.
https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/omicron-vs-delta
"The Delta variant is still active in the US, accounting for the other 1.7% of cases."
Right, it hasn't disappeared yet, but it is disappearing. Did someone claim that there were zero delta cases?
That's three cites backing up what I said. Where are Diane's or your cites?
"All the time" my ass. Search this very page for your comments. How many have cites? Oops!
What?? This is the only other comment I've posted:
https://reason.com/2022/01/20/sotomayor-gorsuch-roberts-mask-supreme-court-npr/?comments=true#comment-9314702
If you want, I'll link to Nina Totenberg's tweet. It's easily found.
Here's the Totenberg cite, for a second time, just in case citing it once wasn't good enough:
https://twitter.com/NinaTotenberg/status/1483924382460399619?s=20
I actually hadn't given Totenberg much thought, just having heard her a few times on NPR when I was still listening, but thank to the Internet, we can now find out her entire sordid career history. What a nasty, self-righteous, partisan prick.
If NPR didn't fire Totenberg over her misconduct vis-a-vis Clarence Thomas, it is no surprise that NPR "stands by her" with her latest accusations. That says nothing about Totenberg's veracity and everything about NPR as an institution.
It was one 7 person study, an opinion, and a strawman cite against something nobody said.
And here you go Mike. Actual non laboratory data.
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/09/14/covid-54-percent-of-hospital-patients-in-ireland-are-fully-vaccinated/
More sealioning from Dee.
Someone insists they wear black robes too, and those are much sillier than masks.
We have rules in civilized society. People who don't follow the rules get ostracized.
That's just the way it works.
"I think a rational person should consider this case closed. If you really want to believe that Roberts, Gorsuch, and Sotomayor herself are all lying about this, fine. Go right ahead."
Cuz any "facts" that might contradict your biased, preconceived partisan beliefs are just violence, right?
I continue to be amazed at how progressive behavior becomes more like religion every day. I suspect this is partly "normal", i.e. irrational human behavior and party political strategy, since objective truth and logic cannot rebut belief.
The entire thing was aimed at people who WANT to believe it, so any counter reporting doesn't even matter. Those same people WANT to believe that Sotomayor was bullied into covering for Gorsuch (see Tony, above). Any reasonable person didn't care about the original story in the first place, let alone the corrections or statements from SCOTUS.
The whole point of this kind of crap is to provide the progs their daily 3 minutes hate, so they stay riled up and angry, and ready to burn down some cities.
The story is quite revealing when it comes to Totenberg and NPR, however. What a nasty partisan prick she is.
If you're willing to lie for somebody, they have you completely.
Maybe Justice Sotomayor should drop a few pounds.
Racist!
Fat chance if it happening.
If I didn't know better, I would swear Sotomayor cleaned my hotel room last week.
These new euphemisms for prostitution are getting pretty obscure.
She fluffed his pillow.
Yeah, she did!
We need more lemon Pledge
If a few means twenty, then yes. It would likely help with the type 1, and may help with the cuntiness. The ignorance, no fixing that, nor the dunning-kruger.
'I have to wonder how many people will have seen the initial story, but miss the important clarifying information. Generally the ratio seems to be 100k see original false claim, 100 see retraction/restatement.
Duh. Which one supports the narrative?
There's that, the broadcasting/coverage or willingness to share or spread the retraction or new data. Or there's simple short attention span as the media has presented the next outrage du jour, social media has another object for mob outrage and wokist vilification. A combination of factors, or, as my misanthropy suggests, simple low intellect, low ethical standards, and a need to feel superior and 'be right.' may be the cause. Hard saying, but fuck the woke, fuck the media, fuck social media, and fuck joe biden.
So, um... 1k to 1?
NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg made that claim in a bombshell report earlier this week. She wrote:
You know how far off the rails we've gotten when refusing to wear a "facial decoration" is a "bombshell" news story.
Bombshell and Nina Totenberg should never be used in the same sentence.
The CDC has finally admitted (after 22 months of denials, obfuscations and lies by CDC, Fauci, Birx and their left wing media propagandists and censors) that covid infections provided longer and stronger immunity from Delta variant than did vaccines).
This acknowledge undermines the entire purpose of vaccine mandates for previously infected Americans, but CDC hasn't had the courage to admit that yet (because doing so will further expose CDC's total incompetence for failing to develop and make available tests to determine if people were previously infected.
Prior Covid-19 Infection Offered Better Protection Than Vaccination During Delta Wave
CDC says research from California and New York before Omicron’s spread showed unvaccinated people without previous infection faced greatest risking media propagandists) that covid infections confer longer and stronger immunity from the Delta variant than vaccines.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/prior-covid-19-infection-offered-better-protection-than-vaccination-during-delta-wave-11642619009
Meh... it's gotten to the point that I'm reading two stories a day that were vociferously denied by health officials that are now being sheepishly admitted.
It's becoming like watching the same porn video over and over. It was hot at first, but now it's just a bore.
Panic porn never gets old!
At least to the producers.
But here's the problem: NPR's reporting is now being challenged.
First, Fox News' Shannon Bream did some digging of her own, and her SCOTUS sources said the report was untrue—Gorsuch did not refuse a request to mask up.
Oh, by 'challenged' I though I was going to read about how someone pointed out that masks don't work. Damn.
immunocompromised colleague
Uh, Robby, not that I don't find you lobbing stones at NPR entertaining, but I recommend having your house in order before doing so. Is she actually immunocompromised or does she just have diabetes?
Technically, I think Type 1 DM is considered an auto-immune disorder. Not sure if she's a type 1 or type 2. Judging by her rotundity, most likely a 2.
Technically, if you have an auto-immune disorder and are immunocompromised they should cancel each other out. But seriously, diabetes, auto-immune, and immunocompromised still aren't the same thing. Treatments or side effects for one or the other may cause others but they aren't intrinsically the same thing. If she has a bone marrow or spleen disease/damage and her Ig levels are low, she's immunocompromised.
68M cases of COVID. Either all 68M had their Ig levels titered and all of them came up immunocompromised or the term is more "apathy/nihilism-to-make-room-for-my-stupidity", "I'm/she's the victim!", "with-vs.-of conflation" bullshit and he might as well have just blamed any predisposition to COVID on her wise latina immune system. That, at least, would be more objective/empirically consistent.
Funny how the false stories always point one way.
Sotomayor is not present aim the Supreme Court. Therefore, her opinions are invalid. That’s how democracy works.
What if she mails in her votes?
In a 254 to 6 decision, the SCOTUS upholds Biden’s vaccine mandates…
They should be required to mail in their votes.
This is why the filibuster keeps us from having nice things.
Do you want ants? 'Cause that's how you get ants.
thirteen?
"In all, 7% of U.S. adults say they have "a great deal" and 29% "a fair amount" of trust and confidence in newspapers, television and radio news reporting -- which, combined, is four points above the 32% record low in 2016 . . . . In addition, 29% of the public currently registers "not very much" trust and 34% have "none at all."
----Gallup, October 7, 2021
https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-dips-second-lowest-record.aspx
So, yeah, according to Gallup, when it comes to Americans' trust and confidence in newspapers, radio, and television news reporting, (29+34 =) 63% of Americans have either "not very much" trust or "none at all".
And when you look at news stories like this, it's hard not to see why! It doesn't take much effort to see why the ratings for news broadcasts are in the toilet, too. Why would anybody believe this shit?
If you want to know what's really happening in the world and why, why would you watch the news?
You can learn alot about someone by paying attention to what they lie about.
You watch the news to find out what the Republicans are lying about--is that how you get your information? Because that would explain a lot, with the idea that inflation always means people are making a profit being just one example.
I learn tons about your universe just from your comments.
the news business is a corrupt industry, thankfully we are subsidizing that fucking cunt to write these bullshit opinion pieces
they are generally reputable people
Objection your honor, assumes facts not in evidence.
You’d think Totenberg would have offered additional explanation or a retraction by now, but she doubled down on Twitter, saying, “NPR stands by my reporting.”
I think they'd Rather keep quiet.
Alphabet Guy insists I provide a cite, so here you go:
https://twitter.com/NinaTotenberg/status/1483924382460399619?s=20
If all 15 denied (9 + 6 for the packing), it wouldn't be enough. They're obliviously circling the wagons like the Buffalo Bills.
The NPR story led me to believe that Gorsuch wasn't a hysterical idiot, and also wasn't completely spineless. I'm glad this has been cleared up, and I'm no longer under that false impression.
"Fake but accurate" - Dan Rather
So now we have 100% confirmation that Nina Totenburg is a liar. Surprise!
Incidentally, a cure for priapism is looking at a picture of Nina’s face.
Apparently she can be a bit of an anchor weighing down one's libido.
The truth does not matter, only the narrative. Gorsuch was a Trump pick, and thus the most horrible person to ever sit on the courts. Facts contrary to the narrative will be studiously ignored by right (I mean left) thinking people.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Is this reporting on the original NPR smear or the doubling down they did after Roberts, Gorsuch and Sotomayor all disavowed the story. Because I saw NPR in my newsfeed this morning asserting that regardless of the Justice's comments, don't believe them, the story is true.
How many Supreme Court justices can you get on the head of a pin?
How many Supreme Court justices have pin heads?
How many Supreme Court justices does it take to change a light bulb?
How many people still believe the Supreme Court actually matters anymore?
Sounds like a cover-up to me.
I didn’t know Gorsuch was a Covington High School alumni…
Were I in Gorsuch's boots and been given this request I would have taken it under advisement, and asked that the seating arrangment could be changed. I have two medical conditions that make wearing tnose mug nappies dangerous to my physical health, and one to my mental well-being. I cannot wear them safely, and so do not wear them. I would have been, as I always am, polite and courteous and VERY firm.
I would have further provided REAL actual medical studies and tests that prove irrefutably and conclusively that the stuipd things are USELESS in preventing contracting and/or spreading the virus. I would go one step further and provide teacing material on the PROPER fitting and wearing of the infernal things, to prove beyond any doubt that well under one half of one percent of people (except possibly in the medical proffession actively working) know how to and DO take the steps to properly fit and wear them. This would further prove my contention that the whole mask-up nonsense is no more than a feel-good we're looking out for you move on the part of the government poohbahs hell bent upon controlling us.
THEN f the "wise " latina judge still wants to hide in her chamber,s knees knocking together, lest she get the dread WooFlew she is perfectly free to do so.
I wonder why they picked Gorsuch to be the "fall guy" for this false meme? Must be a reason there somewhere....... maybe.......
A valid one? Nuther story.
Nina Totenburg? Who puts any credence in her reporting?
I enjoy hearing Totenberg's takes on big issues, and I understand fully that she is an opinion journalist who frequently confuses her political preferences with facts. So I don't really care whether anyone actually asked Gorsuch to wear a mask, or whether Totenberg adequately investigated that point.
Has anyone noticed the changes taking place on the PBS NewsHour tho? There seems to be an accelerated shying away from controversial issues and quotes -- and a deluge of feature stories with only limited demographic appeal.
Are the NPR and PBS stories connected?
Surprise to no one, some time yesterday after this has been published; slate ran a brand new article with the exact same misinformation. I haven't checked salon yet.
All tax payer funding for NPR should be stopped immediately. There isn't any good reason for fund them any more. Rural locations that have less access to news and information are almost completely Red so they are less likely to use NPR. Urban locations that are most likely use NPR have ample access to other media sources.
Complete waste of money and does not serve a purpose any more other than yet one more propaganda arm for the Democrat Party. The Tax Payer should not pay for the benefit of any political party.
The only think that's been worth a damn on NPR for the past 30 years was Car Talk.
Nina's credibility has just fallen a couple of notches...Not so much because of the original error, but because she's doubling-down on a rookie mistake...Not contacting all parties being discussed in a story.
Ah, the media. Never ones to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Can we expect the new CNN misinformation tiger team to attack this pernicious NPR report? I won't hold my breath.
It doesn't even matter whether her statements are true, using the personal relationships of SCOTUS judges to sow discord is utterly inappropriate for a reporter.
The only "bombshell" here is that Totenberg is still abusing her publicly financed position for political partisanship and to attempt character assassination of conservatives.
I always wonder whether moderate liberals have gone bad over the past few years or whether they have always been nasty, bigoted partisans. For Totenberg, the answer is plain from her history, well documented on the Internet: she always has been. And the fact that NPR kept her on for so many years tells you a lot about NPR as well.
what's npr .....
I would recommend meezan bank asaan account where they give you a card with a basic limit of 50k, and no activation needed for online. What I think is that all the best bank for students in pakistan do have lagging in their security services. They don't only have their poor customer services. They are still bad in Internet and mobile app services.
How many justices need to deny the story in order for the denials to be believed? I think the current number, according to Democrats, is 15.
Watching a room full of ostensible libertarians defend a government official's word over a respected reporter's when the government official has an obvious motive is... I don't know. I wish it were entertaining, but it is quite sad.
The Republican party media machine has you people trained like fucking seals. Why don't you be useful and bounce a ball off your noses.
Create a swimming pool with the best service from https://antartikawahanakreasindo.com/ , the design can be as you like
A hybrid solar energy solutions is when your solar panels remain connected to the grid’s power lines and have a backup battery system to store excess power. The sun’s energy absorbed by the solar panels goes through an inverter to create usable electricity. From there, electricity either goes to your home, to your battery, or to the grid.
There are various perfumes that can be bought at a reasonable price, they might be able to replicate the top notes of the branded perfumes price in pakistan, but they would not be able to last for a long period of time on the wearer.