All the News That We’re Willing to Print

By now, most people reading this site will have heard the news:

The Internal Revenue Service said Friday it has lost a trove of emails to and from a central figure [Lois Lerner] in the agency’s tea party controversy, sparking outrage from congressional investigators who have been probing the agency for more than a year.

This is a serious matter.  Obviously, the loss of the e mails could conceivably be innocent, but the circumstances suggest otherwise.  Instead, the circumstances suggest that there was quite a bit of dirt in those e mails.  The AP, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal have reported the matter.

Yet, the New York Times has so far not been willing to cover the story.  As others have said and a google search confirms, the Times has not reported on the matter.

What possible justification could be given for this?  I cannot think of one.  One might believe that a sense of integrity and or least a fear of embarrassment would cause the Times to at least report the story, even if it were buried — but apparently not.

It is my sense that newspapers play to their readers.  New York Times readers are liberal and so the Times caters to their prejudices.  If that is so, then it will only be the outrage of New York Time readers that will lead the paper to behave differently.  So I ask the readers of the New York Times: Where is your integrity?  Where is the outrage?

Mike Rappaport

Professor Rappaport is Darling Foundation Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, where he also serves as the Director of the Center for the Study of Constitutional Originalism. Professor Rappaport is the author of numerous law review articles in journals such as the Yale Law Journal, the Virginia Law Review, the Georgetown Law Review, and the University of Pennsylvania Law Review. His book, Originalism and the Good Constitution, which is co-authored with John McGinnis, was published by the Harvard University Press in 2013.  Professor Rappaport is a graduate of the Yale Law School, where he received a JD and a DCL (Law and Political Theory).

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts


  1. Times Reader says

    Good post and points–except for the last paragraph, which is so poorly written and conceived that it should’ve been omitted, or at least changed drastically. One might believe that a sense of integrity and or least a fear of embarrassment would’ve caused Professor Rappaport to put more critical thought into that last paragraph.

  2. libertarian jerry says

    The questions to ask isn’t about integrity and outrage but who still reads the New York Times? The answer is only fools who don’t think critically or for themselves and rely on the Times to do their thinking for them. People like that should be shunned and avoided at all costs. In the end the Times is nothing but a modern day Pravda. An intellectual front man for the elitists and globalists who wish to rule us. The Times ,along with its readers,stopped being objective years ago and in reality, as a newspaper, should be categorized as an upscale tabloid. All showy opinions and no objective or investigative journalism.

    • Oh Please says

      ” All showy opinions and no objective or investigative journalism.”

      C’mon, really? Just today, largely due to the NY Times, the Obama administration released the DOJ memo on the legal authority to use drones to sometimes kill Americans without due process. The NYT is made of many journalists, some who do great investigative work on issues I’m sure you care about (e.g. civil liberties).

  3. Daniel Artz says

    Asking the readers of the New York Times to demand integrity is almost certainly a waste of time. The remaining readers of the New York Times live and think in the very same echo chamber in which the New York Times’ editorial board resides. They will forever deny (because they earnestly believe their denial) that integrity demands any reporting on what they still see as an unwarranted and purely partisan attack on the Obama Administration. Of course, if such a disappearance of critical evidence had occurred under the stewardship of the Bush Administration, that would have been powerful evidence of corruption or, at the very least, egregious incompetence. But the NYT doesn’t even perceive a double standard there – after all, the GOP is inherently evil and corrupt, and deserving of a much tighter leash that the Democrats, who are presumptively on the side of the angels.

  4. gabe says

    Oh, let’s be honest about it, guys!
    The only people who subscribe to the Times are bird owners. It covers the bottom of a bird cage in such a majestic fashion!!!

    • Times Reader says

      In response to all of you:

      Someone once said, “Those who do not know their opponents arguments do not fully understand their own.” With that in mind, even Richard Epstein admits to reading the Times. Perhaps you fervent and oh-so-significant commenters should consider a subscription to the Times.

      • gabe says

        Well, it is not as if their arguments are not available elsewhere. goodness gracious, the very air around us is permeated with those arguments.
        And as I said, I no longer keep a parrot in a cage – PETA finally convinced me to set the little bugger free!!!

  5. Henry Bechard says

    I must agree that the New York Times has become nothing less than the Pravada of our United States. I nonetheless try and balance what they print with the American Spectator and Wall Street Journal and National Review. Somewhere the truth can be found, if at all. You really have to dig hard today and be willing to draw your own conclusions among all the partisan mud-sllinging. Nevertheless, the NYT continues to fall further and further from the ranks of a one great newspaper into nothing less than a partisan rag. Their editorial board is lost in space and their advertising board continues to grind their teeth as they watch their readership dwindle away since their paper continues its fall from grace. Most times, when I read the NYT and its editorial pages I can only remark: “You’ve got to be kidding!”

    • gabe says

      My parrot agreed with you. The editorial page was the worst – when I placed it in his cage, he would burst into uncontrollable fits of laughter. Alas, the poor bird just had to go – it was nerve wracking with the cackling sound reminding one of the very editorials he was laughing at!

  6. nobody.really says

    The AP, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal have reported the matter.

    Yet, the New York Times has so far not been willing to cover the story….

    What possible justification could be given for this? I cannot think of one….

    It is my sense that newspapers play to their readers…. So I ask the readers of the New York Times: Where is your integrity? Where is the outrage?

    Perhaps due to modesty, Rappaport buries the lede. The real headline here is CONTRA BREITBART, RAPPAPORT VOUCHES FOR INTEGRITY OF WASHINTON POST.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>