Tunneling Media

The Boston Herald continues to tunnel ‘way past the bottom. Having falsely accused Justice Antonin Scalia of making an obscene gesture, then correcting the article, then publishing Scalia’s stinging rebuke they have decided to add more fuel in hopes of causing Scalia embarrassment if not outright damage.

Now they are running a report showing an actual photograph of the gesture (proving Scalia was correct - the gesture is not obscene) but adding a completely unsubstantiated charge that Scalia actually spoke an obscenity. Supposedly, the only person to hear this obscenity happens to be the photographer. The photographer just happens to also be an assistant professor of journalism at Boston College. The reporter who was interviewing Scalia (the same one who wrote the initial hit piece) did not hear any spoken obscenity. The photographer says he heard an entire sentence that the reporter did not.

Got all that?

So the reporter, who was almost certainly standing much closer to Scalia than the photographer, never heard the particularly crude  Italian word ‘vaffanculo". The article goes on to helpfully explain that the word means “(expletive) you". Isn’t that thoughtful of them? They also admit the reporter did not hear the remark.

You heard it here first: I distinctly heard the editor of the Boston Herald say "let’s get Scalia". Don’t believe me? Why? That charge is exactly as substantiated as the photographer’s. So it’s true enough to be printed in the Boston Herald. I mean hey, it passes their strict editorial standards. Heck that charge is exactly as substantiated as the Herald’s original story - which they, themselves, have proven to be a lie by publishing the picture.

Is the irony of this getting through? They are trying to defend the publication of a lie, by publishing photographic evidence that they lied. Then piling on an absurd charge with no substantiating evidence. A charge that defies belief - can anyone believe that the photographer was in a better position to hear a remark than the reporter who was actually talking to Scalia?

Meanwhile, over at Real Clear Politics, Ronald Cass has a thoughtful analysis of exactly why this unprecedented personal attack on a Supreme Court Justice is happening.

"One of the week’s big news stories was the dramatic account of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, accosted outside a Boston Mass, using a Sicilian hand gesture to explain what he would say to people who question his very public commitment to Catholicism. The implicit question wasn’t whether it was alright for a judge to be a practicing Catholic. Instead, it was whether Scalia was improperly committed to positions on cases coming before the Court. Especially on matters like abortion, where the Catholic Church has an official position".

I think he’s got it right, too. This is nothing but smear warfare and a back door attempt to get something, anything, on the record that would make it possible to call for Scalia to recuse himself on certain cases. The media agenda is showing again.

Hey, Boston Herald, someone here on the Boulevard has an opinion of your journalistic ethics:

H/T goes out to Betsy Newmark for the Herald link and to Ann Althouse for the RCP link.