[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
'They Are Not Applying Universal Principles as Philosopher Kings' Janine Jackson ([link removed])

Janine Jackson interviewed FAIR's Jim Naureckas about the secret recording of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for the June 14, 2024, episode ([link removed]) of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.


[link removed]

Rolling Stone (6/10/24 ([link removed]) )

Janine Jackson: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, fresh off revelations of a “Stop the Steal” ([link removed] upside%2Ddown flag%2C adopted,was considering an election case.) -denoting upside-down flag flying at his Virginia home while the Court was deciding whether to hear a 2020 election case, was captured on tape responding to a question about how to address the polarization between left and right in this country. Quote ([link removed]) : “One side or the other is going to win. I don’t know, I mean, there can be a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised,” close quote.

Given what we understand Alito sees as his side, how this sits with you has something to do with your understanding of the role of the Supreme Court, its ethics and accountability, and in terms of some justices, how much brazenness is too much? Joining us now to to think about it is FAIR editor Jim Naureckas. He's here in studio. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Jim Naureckas.

Jim Naureckas: Hey, it’s always great to be here.

JJ: Well, what do you think was actually revealed in this captured conversation? As CNN (6/12/24 ([link removed] 74%2C is one of,gay marriage and LGBTQ equality.) ) said, Alito’s religious zeal, you know, he talks at one point about making the US a place of godliness. That’s been evident in his statements and his opinions. So what is noteworthy about this latest?

JN: I think there is a bit of a mask being taken off with this statement. If you look at his rulings ([link removed]) , the way he votes, he clearly is coming from a place of Christian nationalism. I think that the people who are doing a read on his jurisprudence would agree on that.

But it's always framed in the idea of universal values, of constitutional principles. When he flies a flag endorsing the overthrow of the US government, he blames it on his wife ([link removed]) . He always has an out, and I think he doesn't have so much of an out here. When he says one side or the other is going to win, clearly he wants his side to win. He's not a neutral observer on the sides. He's on the side of what he calls “godliness.”

I think that is important for us to recognize and important for journalists who are covering the Court to take these statements into account when they talk about the rulings that Alito authors and the votes he takes. They should be put in this context.

JJ: Well, absolutely, and that's kind of the next thing I was going to say, because the filmmaker Lauren Windsor ([link removed]) , you know, but we should know that when Alito was talking to her, she was just a woman that he was talking to ([link removed]) at a public event, but she asked him about public trust in the Supreme Court, and he said he blames the media, quote ([link removed]) , “because they do nothing but criticize us, and so they have really eroded trust in the Court,” close quote. Well, of course, what a lot of folks would say is the Court is eroding trust in itself, but building on what you've just said, a lot of folks might say, well, actually, elite media have, through commission and omission, been kind of propping up the idea that the Court is dispassionate, long past the idea where we've seen that that's
not true.
[link removed]

In a typical headline, the New York Times (6/14/24 ([link removed]) ) obscures the partisan nature of a recent Court ruling. In the article, the paper writes that the 6-3 decision "split along ideological"—rather than partisan—"lines."

JN: Yeah. When you see there’s a real difference in the way that journalists cover the Supreme Court versus Congress versus the White House. When Congress does something, they talk about how the Democrats voted and how the Republicans voted, and you can see that there's generally a substantial difference along party lines. The president is identified by party, and a Democratic president does certain things differently than Republican presidents, hopefully.

That is not usually the case when they're discussing Supreme Court rulings. They don't say "there was a six to three ruling from the Supreme Court. The six Republican appointed justices voted one way, and the three Democratic appointed justices voted the other way," and they should. It's a political branch of the government, like the other two branches of government. They are not applying universal principles as philosopher kings. They have, as Alito's statements make very clear, partisan allegiances, and they have outcomes that they're trying to achieve through their votes and through their rulings, and that should be made clear when journalists are talking about the Supreme Court.

JJ: Well, and finally and relatedly, Lauren Windsor explained in her interview ([link removed]) with Rolling Stone why she chose to go to this elite event and record. And it's because the Court is shrouded in so much secrecy and because it refuses to submit to accountability, which listeners will know all about, in the face of evidence of serious ethics breaches, and I think a lot of folks would recognize that.

But I can also still hear folks saying, well, she did this secretly ([link removed]) . If she'd only gone through proper channels to get this information, then we might take it more seriously. I mean, maybe that day has passed, but I do think that folks can recognize that you can't just go up as a corporate reporter and expect Supreme Court justices to tell you what is really going on. So what do you say about this method of obtaining information?
[link removed]

Jim Naureckas: "I think that is important for journalists who are covering the Court to take these statements into account when they talk about the rulings that Alito authors and the votes he takes. They should be put in this context."

JN: Well, it probably wasn't George Orwell ([link removed]) who said that journalism is what people don't want reported; everything else is public relations. That is true to a great extent, that people need to have information that people in power are trying to keep from them, and sometimes you can't get that information except by going undercover. There are things that happen behind closed doors that are said to people who are ideological compatriots that are not said to the general public. You don't know what those things are unless you get behind those closed doors, and sometimes subterfuge is the only way to get behind those doors.

There has been a real shift in journalism, which used to celebrate undercover reporting and used to give awards to people who set up—there's a famous example of a fake tavern set up in Chicago ([link removed]) , it was a real tavern run by journalists to see how many bribes we demanded from them, and they got prizes for that.

But starting with the Food Lion case ([link removed]) where reporters went to a supermarket, got jobs there, found out the horrific way that meat was being handled and mishandled there, and a judge ruled against them ([link removed]) . And ever since then, there's been this idea that, oh, we're really too ethical to do something like get a job in a supermarket to expose threats to public health. The pendulum really has shifted. I think it's a shame, because I think that the public does have a right to know how supermarkets are tainting their food, and they have a right to know what Supreme Court justices are really thinking about the decisions that are going to affect all of our lives.

JJ: We've been speaking with Jim Naureckas. He's editor here at FAIR of the website FAIR.org and the newsletter Extra!. Thanks, Jim Naureckas, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

JN: Thanks for having me on.
Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .