Lame, lamer, and lamest

I did a quick email to the NY Times Public Editor earlier today telling him how disgusting it was if it was true that they had investigated the adoption records of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. Here's his email reply to me.

Dear Reader,

Thanks for writing to us.

While the public editor does not usually get involved in pre-publication matters, Bill Keller, the executive editor of the paper, told us that he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts's children. He said that as an adoptive parent he is particularly sensitive about this issue.

In addition, a senior editor at the paper wrote, "In the case of Judge Roberts's family, our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions."

Sincerely,
Joe Plambeck
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

Note: The public editor's opinions are his own and do not represent those of The New York Times

You gotta love that weasel-note at the end. Oh, really? Then just who do you represent?