|
|
|
 |
|
|
 RSS Feed
| › Most Recent Postings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Post:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Help wanted: Times SCOTUS search begins |
|
| Thu, February 28, 2008 |
|
Who will replace Linda Greenhouse? The 30-year veteran of the Supreme Court beat announced yesterday she's taking a buyout and leaving the Times at the end of the Court's term, which would mean in June. (In the delicious irony department, the news was broken by Greenhouse nemesis Ed Whelan at Bench Memos. Whelan cited "a well-placed Supreme Court source," which indeed must be true, considering that Greenhouse began telling her press room competitors on Wednesday morning and Whelan posted at 9:06 a.m. I am lamentably late to the party because my Wednesdays are too packed to engage in fun stuff like reading and blogging).
Anyway, back to my question: the next Greenhouse. Adam Liptak is the obvious first guess. The legal affairs writer and former Times in-house media-law specialist has a pretty good gig already, with an issues-oriented beat and weekly column. And he's in New York, far from the Times' insular D.C. bureau. Then again, what legal writer wouldn't want this singularly influential perch? He's certainly capable.
A logical D.C. choice might be Eric Lichtblau, whose coverage of DOJ and the legal side of the war (including an upcoming book, Bush's Law: The Remaking of American Justice) would qualify him -- though he'd start out as much a lightning rod for conservative critics as Greenhouse has been over the years. Not that the Times can run itself, and serve its readers, with that concern playing too prominent a role.
Another legal eagle at the Times worth considering: William Glaberson, whose tough reporting on New York state's screwy town courts, and his scoops on the Guantanamo-justice beat, show he knows his way around the law beat.
Of course, the Times could go outside -- Joan Biskupic? Tony Mauro? Jess Bravin? The list goes on, but what is the point of buying out Greenhouse if the head count remains constant?
The real question is, how will the Times' coverage change once it loses such a singularly knowledgeable, authoritative, and hardworking expert? She's from the bookish wing of Court reporting, focusing heavily on what goes on inside the briefs, the arguments, and within One First Street, N.E. Maybe it's inevitable that Greenhouse's replacement will report more from the field. But it's doubtful her replacement will wield as much clout, at least at first. The right wingers can howl all they want. But try reading Greenhouse's body of work (which won the Pulitzer 10 years ago for beat coverage) without the partisan blinders on. There aren't many in the business who can explain the Court's work with such authority while remaining accessible and engaging. And no one else's words on the Court have the same impact.
I asked Greenhouse what comes next for her. She wrote in an e-mail:
I don't have a current book project. I do have quite a few writing and speaking commitments, well into 2009, that will keep me off the street and continuing to follow the Court. After 40 years of daily journalism 30 at the court, I'm excited about the chance to work on longer projects of my own and develop some of my non-work related interests, such as finally learning Spanish.
¿Como se dice? No more first Mondays.
Update: I overlooked another clear in-house contender, Stephen Labaton, the D.C.-based regulatory-law writer who's no stranger to the Court. I'm sure there are others who will come to mind, or bubble to the surface.
Update 2: The New York Observer's John Koblin fills in financial details of the buyout. One of the first comments on Koblin's piece expresses surprise that a star Times reporter would be paid $140,000. Hey, this ain't network TV, folks. Her reported pay is modest by media-star standards, but quite respectable by overall newspaper standards.
|
|
Posted at 08:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are 0 comments to this post:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
