This is a story about one particular aspect of the hearing,
I think it is about one day of the hearing. The hearing occurs over time. What is reported corresponds to the day that it occurred on. I don't know about any aspect.
one that has been covered by many many many sources.
This source collected the actual questioning on this day and did so without inserting themselves as "part of" what was occurring. Many media are not as objective in their presentation as Amy Goodman was here.
In fact it is rather typical of most of the opinions I have seen. It is pretty average.
I can't verify this. There is nothing said here that provides any information.
In fact it is rather typical of most of the opinions I have seen. It is pretty average.
There is nothing particularly noteworthy about the coverage. In fact it is rather typical of most of the opinions I have seen. It is pretty average.
There is no critique of other coverage, nor contrast to any other coverage.
There doesn't have to be "critique" of other coverages. There is however a reference to one other coverage organization, Slate.
Nor is there any deep analysis from Constitutional and USSC experts as to why her answer or lack thereof may have been correct or incorrect.
What I see is that Judge Barrett brushed off a question and substituted an irrelevant one. That is clear from what I saw.
The Constitutional implications could be presented by someone at some time. I actually posted this in /r/law to take that up because I think there is a huge problem in a court that won't support the peaceful transition of power.
Such a view invites disaster. But I am not here to discuss that - but rather to discuss what the journalistic efforts show.
You are using this sub to push an agenda.
This is a generic, unbound attack. It's not civil.
I am going to request that the word "you" not be used any further to change the topic from media criticism to reddit users.
A better example of 'Good' would be Wolf Blitzer challenging Nancy Pelosi the other day, something that is not common on CNN.
That would be an example of media interacting with someone of news interest. This is an example of reporting on someone of news interest.
I "could" ask that here if Judge Barrett were to be questioned by Wolf Blitzer. But that isn't the case here. Here, Senators from the United States Senate pose the questions. The answers and evasions are none-the-less revealing of just who Judge Barrett is.
Which is the purpose of asking.
What the journalist did here was to connect about 4 sets of questions by Senators and how Judge Barrett responded to them. In the case of questions by Senators Booker and Kloubuchar reveal two character flaws in the candidate.
Judge Barretts response to Senator Booker lacked integrity. Integrity would be for the candidate to support the peaceful transition of power and to expect that a president would do this. Failing that is a failure of integrity because without peaceful transition the court itself could not exist. Nor could Congress. Nor could our state governments.
The Judge needs to affirm that they do not favor the civil unrest that would result if a major part of the government refused to operate peacefully during transition. That is a serious flaw.
The second are that was covered is about the rights of individuals to be able to participate in election voting without intimidation. There is a statute already on the books that was stated. Judge Barrett, rather than affirm that the statute would be even looked at, dodged the question using an immature 1st year law student technique called the "reasonable person" test to avoid addressing the broader question. It's a debate technique used during questioning and a principle that a 1st year law student needs to take into consideration - especially in torts and criminal procedure.
But the first was a direct "mishearing" intentional or otherwise of a serious question about integrity.
She flunked.