Michelle Malkin has a good roundup of links and this form letter that the Times public editor is sending out to people who complained.
Dear Reader,The letter still doesn't explain why they made the inquiries in the first place. There is no indication that they thought something was wrong with the adoption - just checking in case there might have been. John McCain has an adopted child, I believe. Did they do the same thing with him. And what does it mean to say that "he would not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts's children." What would be non-gratuitous reporting about two small children? The reporters can report their existence and their behavior at the nomination ceremony but for a reporter to have done anything beyond that would seem to me to fit the definition of "gratuitous reporting." And they went there. They need to apologize.
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
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."
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
I'm sure that this will not go any further than this. The uproar is just too justified. But chalk up another reason that people dislike the media.