Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Cheap Chicken Wing Deal Ruined by Gunslinging Teens
FIT Students Busted For Drug Dealing Get Probation
Gothamist knew that someday Law & Order will filter to the highest levels of government. We just didn't figure that it would be in this way: Fred Thompson, who plays District Attorney Arthur Branch, has agreed to be an adviser to President Bush for the Supreme Court justice selection process. Apparently, one term in the Senate and a role on America's longest running cop-and-lawyer show can launch you into guiding one of the most important decisions for our country! Now Gothamist wonders if Thompson can do anything about Tom Delay's complaining about L&O mentioning him in an episode...or if writers will be trying to say anything about the current administration!
The NY Times' special section on Sandra Day O'Connor; we also enjoy Slate's coverage of the Supreme Court. And check out Justice O'Connor's memoir of growing up, Lazy B, as well as a look at the Supreme Court from Chief Justice William Rehnquist, The Supreme Court.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Bush should just nominate Thompson!
Dag, Gothamist. If you can't do any real research before posting, at least you can read the pages you link to!
If you had, you'd see that Thompson is an accomplished lawyer, a former Assistant United States Attorney, and served as Minority Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee. He was elected twice to congress, though he didn't finish his second term.
Most importantly, Thompson served on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is where they're going to hold the confirmation hearings on Bush's nominee. He knows the other people on the committee and knows how they operate.
I'm no fan of Bush or Thompson. But in your rush to post a wacky L&O story you ignore the facts and make it look like this guy is just some boob, and he's not.
John, yes, we knew Fred Thompson was a congressional lawyer. But let's face it, his status as a celebrity put him on the committee.
Detective Munch makes a good point. And that's all the more reason President Bush should nominate Thompson.
Justice Branch!
Munch nailed it. You totally underplayed his relevant exdperience. And why would Bush be interested in his celebrity status? Will the Democrats endorse his pick because a celebrity had a hand in it?
And speaking of overlooking relevant experience, what about his fine work in Die Hard 2 and Days of Thunder?!! Jeez, Gothamist.
Lighten up Detective Munch. Did you really expect flippant, L&O-obsessed Gothamist to present a serious analysis of Thompson's qualifications? Is that the role you think Gothamist should play with news items?
There's probably dozens of politically oriented blogs, not to mention actual newspapers and magazines, that are treating Thompson's position as presidential advisor with the seriousness the appointment deserves. Why not read those sources for the serious analysis and Gothamist for the lighthearted, New York-centric take?
I'm as concerned about what Bush will do to the Court as anyone, but I have to agree that this entry is not good for Gothamist's general credibility. Thompson's career is very distinguished, and he's actually MORE qualified to advise Bush about the Supreme Court than he is to act in a television show.
Lighthearted or not, Gothamist, like any media outlet, should strive to be fair. And this entry is unfair.
Yes, but is Gothamist a media outlet or a blog? People seem to be expecting anyone who publishes anything on the internet to hold to journalism's ethics and responsibilities. Blogs are not necessarily news sources. You expect it to always be fair, accurate, truthful, or non-biased, but why should it? It's just someone's glorified web page, made easier to update with Movable Type.
First, a blog IS a media outlet. Especially a blog that publicizes itself to the extent Gothamist does, sells advertising, etc. You don't have to be owned by Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch or Arthur Sulzberger to be a "media outlet." Blogging is becoming a cornerstone of the media. For example, there are lawyers who keep pace with the rapid developments of the courts by following blogs that track decisions in different courts and practice areas. If the source takes the time to be trustworthy, a blog is as legitimate a source as a newspaper.
Second, I DO expect anyone who publishes on the Internet to hold to journalism's ethics and responsibilities. I know that most of them won't, but only the ones that do deserve to be read. Fair, accurate and truthful are reasonable things to expect of anyone. "Non-biased" isn't the same thing -- everyone has bias.
Third, if Gothamist wants to be a gossip rag, that's certainly its perogative and if it goes that way, I'm sure it will still have plenty of readers, though I won't be one of them. But my impression is that Gothamist wants to be a semi-lighthearted, semi-serious website that pulls together stories of interest for a certain demographic of New Yorkers. If it wants to stay on that course, it needs to avoid lapses in judgment like this post about Thompson -- and I trust that it will.