Now Do A Supreme Court Justice

“You can criticize the fact checkers and the end result of their fact checks. That's reasonable. Fact checkers often get stuff wrong. But to argue that their speech somehow impinges on someone's speech is nonsense.” —@mmasnick https://t.co/p3tX1zjPxL

— Yuri Litvinenko (@ylitvinenko) September 15, 2021

Yes, it is. But that's just whinging about some schmuck on the intertoobs. Now do Amy Coney Barrett:

"That's just straight-up trolling," said Lithwick. "One thing I really noticed and I think kind of got lost in the irony today is the way in which she went to an event, as you said, it was a Mitch McConnell event, and the press was not advised that it was happening. There are no recordings of it. The handful of reporters that were there were allowed to take notes."

She noted a local reporter and her colleagues were moved to the back of the room while complaining the press misreports what the Supreme Court does.

"It is the most astonishing lack of self-knowledge to get up and say that you shouldn't listen to reporters, you should read our incredibly nuanced opinion that was a page-and-a-half last week in the abortion case, and just don't trust the press because they're lying to you, trust me, we're non-partisan. It is next-level cynical," she said.

Elections are rigged so we shouldn't trust them (and the alternative is....?)  Reporters are liars, so we shouldn't allow them to report on our speeches.  And everything I say is true and can be trusted and so should be taken at face value.  Any questions?  Well, we can't have those; that's what reporters do, doncha know?

The AP "just dutifully copied her notes, sent out her press release, put out that headline without the context of her dripping hypocrisy in the headline. That headline should have been 'Partisan Hack Afraid People Might Notice Hackery,'" he suggested. "That would have been an accurate headline. But the press didn't do that, did they?"

When accuracy conflicts with objectivity, print the objectivity.  Even if "objectivity" is a myth.

Wonder what the press is going to do with this?

The Justice Department has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction in Austin federal court in its suit against Texas seeking to block #SB8—the controversial ban on nearly all abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy:https://t.co/n5TzFSwV56

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 15, 2021

But I'd be remiss in not also flagging pages 7–12, which explain in detail the incredibly deleterious effects SB8 has already had on far too many Texans seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights. These are powerful stories that foreground why *all* of this is so important.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 15, 2021

Ignore it? Or get it completely wrong? We seem to have only two choices.