Peter Baker's judicial activist article-LTTE

[Citizen Jane]

Just wanted to share my Dad's LTTE with you all. He reads here but does not post. He has, however, given me permission to post stuff he copies me on!...

Ombudsman:

With an editorial, caveat emptor is understood, but with a news or feature article the reader's guard is down. She or he expects a commitment to accuracy, if not truth; the reader expects to find key terms defined unambiguously and key facts vetted openly.

As a staff writer for the Post, Peter Baker certainly knows this. Having been hired for his influential position, he must be both bright and accomplished. These conditions being so, how might one explain his crucial failure either to define the term "judicial activist" or to test the definition against the facts? And how might one explain his uncritical acceptance of the White House "talking point" about Democrats' prior commitment to rejecting any name the President might put forward?

In the "Four Idols" section of the Novum Organum Francis Bacon presents a variety of factors that interfere with clear thinking and productive argument. One is the "Idol of the Marketplace," which refers essentially to the fact that we often fail to communicate because our understanding of what a word or phrase means is different from others' understanding. Failing to define so key a term as "judicial activist"—a term both fuzzy and very heavily loaded—is a freshman English mistake. Either that or, with an accomplished writer, carelessness or obfuscation. A definite disservice to readers, however generously you look at it.

Before asserting that judges considered "liberal" (by whom? documentation?) are more activist than judges considered "conservative," Baker should have (a) defined the term "activist" in a way that could be tested by the record, (b) compared the records of "liberal," "centrist," and "conservative" judges, and (c) indicated the source of his data.

Without these fundamental efforts his article doesn't just become useless (not your specific concern, I know), but seriously misleading. Progressives will dismiss it as lacking credibility (at best!); conservatives will trumpet it as an endorsement of their top-down talking points agenda. Open minds on neither extreme will be challenged to re-think the situation. Open minds in the center (unless their crap detectors are turned on "high") will be seduced by unattributed assertions marshaled behind undefined—but heavily loaded—labels.

Whatever the enabling cause, whatever the motivation, whatever the effective cause—this is morally wrong. This is not just sloppy journalism. This is insidiously damaging, both to the Post's reputation, and to the Post's readers. We deserve to be informed, clearly and honestly. We hope to be challenged and perhaps jolted out of our preconceived opinions. Baker's article is morally unjustified by either criterion.