Is Newsweek going to have to run a second correction next week in the wake of its reverential profile of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the one currently on newsstands? Not only did Newsweek get spun by the White House which claimed that Roberts never joined the right-wing legal group, the Federalist Society, which turned out to be wrong. But Newsweek also got spun by Roberts' buddies who insisted the Justice-to-be really didn't have much to do with the partisan legal wrangling during the 2000 Florida recount, which, if he did, might prove troublesome during his confirmation hearings.
Newsweek, mocking "Liberal bloggers [who] floated conspiracy theories," about Roberts' recount handiwork, stated flat out the allegations "aren't true." The magazine reported, "Roberts's role in the case of Bush v. Gore was minimal, according to colleagues who worked with him. Roberts did briefly go to Florida to be on hand as a legal consultant, but he was preoccupied with working on the adoption of a baby son."
See, Roberts' colleagues (i.e. GOP attorneys) said it wasn't true so it must not be true, right? Somebody forgot to tell reporters who work outside the Beltway, like the ones at the Miami Herald. On Wednesday the paper delivered this:
"U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts played a broader behind-the-scenes role for the Republican camp in the aftermath of the 2000 election than previously reported -- as legal consultant, lawsuit editor and prep coach for arguments before the nation's highest court, according to the man who drafted him for the job."
Turns out Roberts did not go "briefly" to Florida to be on hand as a legal GOP consultant. He camped out in Tallahassee out for nearly ten days.
Adding insult to injury for Newsweek, its shoddy Federalist Society and Florida recount reporting was trumpeted in the lead of its Roberts puff piece.
CW: Newsweek (Down arrow). Mag botches facts in Roberts lovefest. What happened to real reporting?