We know from her record on the 2nd Court of Appeals that she's not a particularly effective colleague. I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court while we were reviewing his record, it -- you know, people who were familiar with the workings of the court said that she was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues.
Sonia Sotomayor served on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito served on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
I don't have a degree in Math, but the most rudimentary knowledge of such tells me that 2 and 3 aren't the same.
Well, I'm not going to comment on what he said about her, because I didn't hear him say anything specifically about her, but when I was talking to people about the 2nd Court of Appeals -- for example, look, as you know, justices circulate opinions and -- to their colleagues to get their feedback and to act as, you know, sort of a prompt for discussions when they meet in chambers.
Well -- in conference, excuse me -- what she would do is she would mark them up like she was your English school teacher and -- with your typos and misspellings and other words that she wanted to have changed, and send them back to her colleagues -- not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with your colleagues.
Of course he's not going to comment on this, he's making it up as he goes along.
To approach this topic from the perspective of the use of "anonymous sources", one has to also look at what other pundits, writers, and reporters have said in their various columns, blogs, and on-air reports that have also come from "anonymous sources".
From my perspective, the use of "anonymous sources" to create the bulk of your thesis statement tends to make readers less likely to believe your claims, unless you have a counterbalance of facts backed-up with "open" sources that can be verified by your readers.
Also, if the author has crediblity outside of the article where he/she is usging "anonymous" sources, the likelihood that their readership is going to believe what they read is increased.
However, with the continued onset of fierce, ideological, voices that are bent on pushing a "message" rather than facts, the use of "anonymous sources" by people like Karl Rove increases the likelihood that their subject matter is extremely by an exponentially large degree.
It is for this reason that any and all that read anything written by Rove or see an interview with him where he cites "anonymous sources" should question each and every point he makes. The problem is that so many have become numb to the use of unverifiable sources that they now lack that ability to question them. Also, if the reader has their own ideological bent to push, then facts be damned.
More from Media Matters
More from Media Matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment