ProPublica Fools the New York Times

As I detailed the other day, ProPublica heavily implied that about a decade into his job, Justice Thomas had threatened to resign unless his pay was raised. ProPublica was careful to leave that impression while using hedged phrases that fell short of it. Its headline was that his “Private Complaints About Money Sparked Fears He Would Resign.” That’s misleading itself, since it suggests Thomas was complaining about his own finances — something for which ProPublica has produced no evidence — but it does not allege that Thomas threatened to resign, just that some people were led to fear that he would.

The New York Times has now fallen for the trap*, reporting as though it were fact what ProPublica insinuated. “Clarence Thomas Threatened to Resign Over Salary Concerns in 2000,” blares the headline. Zach Montague’s story does not quote Thomas threatening to resign. It does not quote anyone who says Thomas threatened to resign. It does not report on anyone who heard Thomas threaten to resign. It does not purport to have additional evidence beyond the ProPublica story, which also lacked any of these features.

It repeats ProPublica’s misleading description of a 2000 memo which also did not claim that Thomas had threatened to resign.

To ProPublica’s limited credit, it noted that the concerns Thomas expressed about judicial pay were widely voiced at the time. The Times omits this context. Both stories omit that Thomas had already said he was going to serve on the Court until at least 2034.

This claim about Justice Thomas is spreading like a game of telephone, if the players had an agenda.

* Both this clause and the headline are, I know, the most charitable reading of the Times.