Political activism in journalism is nothing new. But it is rarely so evident.
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dominates in abortion case,” reads the headline to a news report this week by CNN Supreme Court reporter Ariane de Vogue.
If it were just the headline, the unusually excited tone could be forgiven. But there is so, so much more.
“If there is any question whether 86-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has spent her life steeped in issues concerning women’s rights, is slowing down after four bouts of cancer, it was not evident Wednesday morning in Washington,” reads the report’s opening sentence.
It continues: “For over an hour, Ginsburg, the leading liberal on the bench, engaged in a high stakes constitutional version of whack-a-mole, taking down arguments put forward by supporters of a Louisiana abortion access law that requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.”
The article goes on, claiming excitedly that Ginsburg “calmly, persistently, and systematically” “dismantle[d]” and “dissected” “one-by-one” the arguments put forward by lawyers tasked with making the case for the pro-life Louisiana law, which CNN characterizes as “restrictive.”
“As she often does,” reads the report, “she asked the first question at oral argument. She is a proceduralist, and she sometimes starts with complicated threshold arguments, bringing them to the light of day.”
What is this? Is this a news report, or is it fan mail?
The report then goes on to detail a back-and-forth between Ginsburg and a “triggered” Justice Samuel Alito, who “grabbed on to the procedural argument” that clinics facing the prospect of adhering to new regulations might not have the patient’s best interests at heart. Naturally, according to CNN, Ginsburg won the exchange with ease and style.
Then, there is the part where the report describes Justice Ginsburg as pouncing on the constitutionality of the Louisiana law. And by “pouncing on the constitutionality of the law,” the CNN report means Ginsburg asserted repeatedly that if a woman is going to suffer complications from an abortion, it will probably happen once she has returned home from the clinic. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeff Wall, who defended the Louisiana law this week, conceded there is truth to her statement. However, he added, it is also sometimes “not true.” A doctor, the report notes, testified in one case that “on occasion,” he performed on women who then required immediate hospitalization.
“After an hour,” CNN concludes, “Ginsburg had done what she could to defeat a law that she already voted to block on a preliminary basis last year. … What she didn’t say in Court, but what she often says in public appearances, is that restrictive abortion laws are likely to have a disproportionate impact on women without the means to travel longer distances to obtain the procedure.”
It adds, “Ginsburg knows that if Louisiana prevails in the case, it will embolden other states to pass similar laws.”
Hard news reporting or pro-Ginsburg hagiography? You decide.
