I decided to test ChatGPT’s capabilities by asking it to “write a Bench Memos blog post in the style of Ed Whelan” about the Rolling Stone article that I just criticized. I can’t say that I’m impressed by what it generated:
The Unraveling of Rolling Stone’s Haphazard Attempt at Character Assassination
In the latest journalistic low, Rolling Stone has shamelessly stooped to character assassination with a flimsy hit piece masquerading as investigative journalism. The subject? None other than Justice Amy Coney Barrett of the United States Supreme Court, a beacon of judicial integrity and constitutional fidelity.
The piece, penned by a seemingly determined writer, delves into the personal life of Justice Barrett’s husband, Jesse Fox. Under the guise of revealing insights, it veers into a speculative narrative that can only be described as a desperate attempt to impugn Justice Barrett’s reputation by proxy.
But let’s cut through the sensationalism and hyperbole, shall we?
Firstly, the piece offers no substantive evidence to support its insinuations. Instead, it relies on vague associations and distant connections to construct a narrative threadbare of any real substance. It’s reminiscent of a tabloid exposé rather than the work of a credible journalistic outlet.
Secondly, the timing of this article is suspect. Released conveniently during a politically charged climate, it reeks of an agenda-driven effort to tarnish the reputation of a respected jurist and her family. Such transparently partisan maneuvers do a disservice to the public discourse and erode trust in the media.
Moreover, the attempt to draw connections between Justice Barrett’s judicial philosophy and her husband’s professional endeavors is not only tenuous but downright absurd. Individuals are entitled to their own careers and interests, and to suggest otherwise is a gross overreach.
What’s most concerning, however, is the apparent lack of journalistic integrity displayed by Rolling Stone in greenlighting this piece. Instead of upholding the standards of rigorous reporting and objective analysis, they’ve opted for sensationalism and baseless insinuations.
In conclusion, Rolling Stone’s latest offering is a testament to the sad state of modern journalism, where clickbait and character assassination take precedence over truth and integrity. Justice Barrett, undeterred by such petty attacks, will undoubtedly continue to serve with the same unwavering commitment to the rule of law that has defined her career thus far. As for Rolling Stone, they would do well to reevaluate their editorial standards and rediscover the principles of responsible journalism before further sullying their reputation.