This obscenity by ANEMONA HARTOCOLLIS (of the New York Times) perfectly captures the reasons public defenders never ever want to talk to the press. Not only are most reporters asinine when it comes to portraying the clients, they're actually snotty about the lawyers. At least the ones who toil in obscurity on behalf of poor folks. This though may set a new mark for grotesque condescension.
Don't even get me started on this one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
my controversial book about a day in my life as Public Defender in the South Bronx is finally available for Kindle and Ipad.
8 comments:
And what kind of judge says "okey doke" on the record?
It really is a condescending article. I'm surprised that this is even newsworthy. I'm not sure why the writer of the article seemed intent on pitting private appointed counsel versus public defender agency. Private attorney gets his name in the article. Legal Aid attorney is referred to as "Legal Aid" as though that, in and of itself, is a status. Either way, to make it look like attorneys are clamoring out of greed for the spotlight, and then giving the impression that the bad guy won, really sucks. We're all here to do some good. No need to pit defenders against one another - we have enough enemies as it is.
Carol Berkman says "okey doke" on the record and much worse off it. She was the one who once said to me at the bench in the middle of a hearing: "Mr. Feige, My life is a living hell, and if you don't shut up, I'm going to make your life a living hell. Now shut up and step back..."
Ah the majesty of the law....
Let's see if they publish my letter in response: "Motivations of public defenders unfairly impugned"
To Letters Editor Thomas Feyer:
I won’t suggest that Anemona Hartocollis disparaged Legal Aid because journalists make a career impugning the credibility of others (“Lawyers Compete to Represent an Unprepossessing Client,” Feb. 19, 2006). I know better. I got journalism training.
In crafting her clever opinion angle, Ms. Hartocollis missed how public defenders, though mired in law school debt, accept paltry salaries to help poor people accused of crime. We sacrifice pay and glory because we believe that the constitution should require no user fees. Ms. Hartocollis failed to grasp our motivations or support her opinion that Legal Aid only sought to continue representing Andrew Goldstein for notoriety.
If Ms. Hartocollis took her job for notoriety, she should stop projecting. The public will know a reporter before any famous client’s attorneys. Take her article. Ms. Hartocollis’ name featured prominently. And the four attorneys who wanted to help Mr. Goldstein? They went unnamed.
You know just when I think it really stinks to be a defender in Alabama, I find stuff like this that reaffirms my opinion that bigots and jackasses pollute all 50 states.
Never thought I'd find common ground with the Defense Bar -- but Hartocollis is such a bad reporter. Tonally irresponsible and often flat wrong. I would have thought defense attorneys would appreciate her raw fetishization and shameless promotion of Peter Braunstein's defense, but maybe that's my presumptions poking through.
This is, after all, the trial of a man who tortured and terrorized a woman, no matter how amusing his bon mots may be. It is not, to quote Hartocollis, a "must see" in the spirit of watching Sex and the City or any of the other fanciful crap she's vomited onto the Times' pages.
I honestly wonder what a defense attorney would feel would be "do[ing] some good" in this case, given that the person depriving another of constitutional rights here is clearly (isn't it usually?) the defendant, aided in this case by a media about as respectful of the victim's right to privacy as the photobug prison guards in Abu Ghraib.
But, back to Anemonia, Abe Rosenthal was supposed to have cleaned up the Times' crime reporting in 1964. Obviously, he failed.
Ha I just came across this after her terrible article on hospitals in NYC not giving out Free Baby Formula leaving out that it's one of ten steps to promoting breastfeeding. She also indicated "which, according to the ads," reduce diarrhea when there are multiple studies that a simple google search would have let her know that it's no some random ground breaking assertion.
HA and I just came across this after reading her heinous article "The Lonely Death of Sabrina Seelig," where boho = glamour and being either a working-class mom or unemployed student makes a person unable to relate to the fragile, effervescent experience of a young Ephedrin-popping intellectual who may or may not have been victim of malpractice.
If she wants to write, she should blog. At least that way her readers won't expect any journalistic even-handedness from her. Way to go, NY Times.
Post a Comment