A letter sent today to New York Times Public Editor, Clark Hoyt.


HOW MANY TIMES DOES IT NEED TO BE EXPLAINED?

Dear Mr. Hoyt,

I was struck by the language in Benjamin Weiser's piece in today's paper, "Police in Gun Searches Face Disbelief in Court." In discussing the issue of searches made by police, he writes: "The Fourth Amendment sets limits on the conditions that permit a search; if they are not met, judges must exclude the evidence, even if that means allowing a guilty person to go free."

How many times does the point need to be made, that the status of guilt is one determined by a court of law, NOT a New York Times reporter, nor anyone else, before a highly paid Times reporter begins to get it right? As we all know, one item that sets our criminal justice system apart from many others in the world is that the accused
are "innocent until proven guilty." It is not Mr. Weiser's place to provide a summary judgment on any accused person and he should refrain from throwing around this right wing boilerplate talking-point. If we can't count on the 'neutral' New York Times to get it right, than who can we count on? It should be struck
from the record, or 'the paper of record.'

Sincerely,
Edward Keating