Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]


** OPINION
------------------------------------------------------------


** CBS landed a rare Supreme Court interview. Here’s what Amy Coney Barrett did (and didn’t) say.
------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett being interviewed on “CBS News Sunday Morning.” (Courtesy: CBS News/Mary Kouw)

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is speaking. And speaking. And speaking.

Traditionally, we’ve known very little about the inner workings of the Supreme Court. That has changed in recent years. But now Barrett is really opening up with a new book and plenty of interviews to go along with it.

In her first TV interview since joining the Supreme Court in 2020, Barrett spoke with CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell for “CBS News Sunday Morning.” Here’s the story ([link removed]) that appeared on air. And here’s the extended 55-minute interview ([link removed]) .

Barrett’s book, which comes out Tuesday, is called “Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.”

The book and corresponding publicity tour — which included the high-profile sit-down with O’Donnell — come at a time when trust in the Supreme Court has, perhaps, never been lower ([link removed]) . The conservative court members have come under attack with accusations that they are letting their personal politics influence how they rule.

In her book, Barrett denied such allegations, writing, “My office doesn’t entitle me to align the legal system with my moral or policy views. Swearing to apply the law faithfully means deciding each case based on my best judgment about what the law is. If I decide a case based on my judgment about what the law should be, I’m cheating.”

Is that truly the case?

The New York Times’ Jodi Kantor writes ([link removed]) , “Justice Barrett plays an extraordinarily powerful role on the court, as part of the three-member fulcrum whose votes often decide cases, and her book is billed as a rare look inside her work. But her book, and the publicity events, may also draw attention for all she doesn’t answer. In ‘Listening to the Law,’ she does not grapple with the paradox of her position: Though Justice Barrett has clinched a 50-year conservative legal revolution, overturning precedents on abortion, affirmative action and gun control, she also is seeking a reputation for independence and the trust of Americans with diverse views.”

Kantor adds, “And while she has sometimes sided with Democratic-appointed justices since she joined the court, she has almost never voted with them in major cases.”

Axios’ Mike Allen and April Rubin wrote ([link removed]) , “Since Trump appointed her to high court during his first term, Barrett has been a solid vote for its conservative bloc.”

Yet, Barrett insists that politics do not play a role in court decisions. She told O’Donnell in the interview that aired Sunday, “I want Americans to understand the law and that it's not just an opinion poll about whether the Supreme Court thinks something is good or whether the Supreme Court thinks something is bad. What the Supreme Court is trying to do is see what the American people have decided. … But the court should not be imposing its own values on the American people.”

And Barrett does not agree with those who believe that the U.S., because of the actions of Trump, is in a constitutional crisis. In an event held last week by Bari Weiss and The Free Press, Barrett said, “I think the Constitution is alive and well. I think the country remains committed to the rule of law. I think we have functioning courts.”

The biggest case that has come up during Barrett’s tenure was the court’s overturning of the right to abortion in 2022. It’s a decision that Barrett wrote about in her book. Barrett claimed in her book that 1973’s Roe v. Wade went against the will of many Americans and that the right to an abortion should have been decided by voters, not judges. She wrote, “The evidence does not show that the American people have traditionally considered the right to obtain an abortion so fundamental to liberty that it ‘goes without saying’ in the Constitution. In fact, the evidence cuts in the opposite direction. Abortion not only lacked long-standing protection in American law — it has long been forbidden.”

During Sunday’s interview on CBS, Barrett was asked by O’Donnell about Hillary Clinton’s prediction that the court will “do to gay marriage what they did to abortion,” meaning sending it back to the states.

Barrett said, “I think people who criticize the court on the outside say a lot of different things, but again, the point I make in the book is that we have to tune those things out.”

Barrett wrote in her book, “The court has held that the rights to marry, engage in sexual intimacy, use birth control, and raise children are fundamental, but the rights to do business, commit suicide, and obtain abortion are not.”

That would seem to indicate that, in Barrett’s opinion, gay marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. She told O’Donnell, “Yes, again, I'm describing what our doctrine is, and that is what we've said.”

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER
[link removed]


** Poynter’s 2025 Bowtie Ball: Join us Nov. 15
------------------------------------------------------------

Celebrate Poynter’s 50th anniversary at the 2025 Bowtie Ball, honoring Jane Pauley alongside Dean Baquet and G.B. “Garry” Trudeau. This signature evening brings together civic leaders, journalists and supporters to champion a free press. Secure your spot now for an unforgettable night of recognition and community in Tampa.

Get tickets ([link removed])


** On the cover
------------------------------------------------------------

Barrett is on the cover of today’s USA Today, along with an interview she did with USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page and Maureen Groppe, who covers the Supreme Court for USA Today.

Here’s today’s cover:
(Courtesy: USA Today)


** Christie goes off
------------------------------------------------------------

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie didn’t hold back when slamming Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as well as President Donald Trump, on Sunday’s “This Week” on ABC. Last week, Kennedy appeared before members of the Senate to answer questions about his work, including many questions about vaccines.

Christie called Kennedy a “foolish man” and then said, “The president did this. He knows. The president’s smart enough to know RFK Jr. doesn’t belong in that job. But after he won, he wanted to show everybody, ‘I can do whatever I want to do because this Senate will be compliant no matter what I do and I’ll put the greatest vaccine and public health denier of the last 20 years in charge of public health in America.’ It’s a human middle finger to everybody who opposed him.”

Former Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus pushed back against Christie, calling RFK a “decent, humble and caring guy” who was trying to do the right thing. Priebus then said, “He’s trying to balance the benefits of the COVID shot versus some of the admitted risks that the CDC has put on him.”

Christie went right back at Priebus, saying, “I’m very confused by you this morning. So I want to know: You think Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the best man to be leading public health? Answer the question.”

Priebus slinked his way out of an answer, saying, “It’s not my decision. It’s the president’s decision.”

Christie then said, “You’re supporting the decision. … You just called him a humble, qualified man. So you think he’s the best person to lead public health in this country? He’s a joke! He’s a foolish man and he’s a joke!”

Mediaite’s Joe DePaolo has the video of the exchange ([link removed]) .

Also, be sure to check out this good analysis from The New York Times’ Sheryl Gay Stolberg: “Kennedy, Rejecting Data, Fuels Distrust of His Own Agencies.” ([link removed])


** Game, set, chaos
------------------------------------------------------------
President Donald Trump attends Sunday’s U.S. Open tennis tournament. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)

President Donald Trump attended the men's final of the U.S. Open tennis tournament in New York on Sunday, and it apparently turned out to be a major headache for not only spectators, but the players, too. The much-anticipated match between Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz started about 45 minutes late because long security lines left many spectators stranded outside the gates.

Legendary tennis player Martina Navratilova said on British television that the delay was “insane” and talked about how players before big matches have specific routines, including exact times to eat and warm up. Reports are that thousands of the 24,000 seats were still empty when the two players took the court.

As far as his presence in the stadium, Trump received a few cheers, but for the most part was loudly booed. The headline in The New York Times was: “Trump Is Met With Mostly Boos at U.S. Open as Security Delays a Match.” ([link removed])

This clip ([link removed]) certainly seems to indicate Trump was being loudly booed.

In his Bounces tennis newsletter ([link removed]) , Ben Rothenberg reported that the U.S. Tennis Association, which runs the U.S. Open, sent a memo requesting that broadcasters censor any possible protests or other reactions to Trump’s presence. The memo, obtained by Rothenberg, said in part, “With respect to Broadcast Coverage, the President will be shown on the World Feed and the Ashe Court Feed during the opening anthem ceremony. We ask all broadcasters to refrain from showcasing any disruptions or reactions in response to the President’s attendance in any capacity, including ENG (Electronic News Gathering) coverage.”

Front Office Sports’ Ryan Glasspiegel reported ([link removed]) before the match that ESPN said it would cover the event as normal by acknowledging Trump was there, but focusing on the match.

Meanwhile, The Guardian’s Bryan Armen Graham wrote, “The USTA’s censorship of Trump dissent at the US Open is cowardly, hypocritical and un-American.” ([link removed])

Graham wrote, “In making that pre-emptive concession, the USTA has committed an unforced error that can’t be undone: sacrificing credibility in order to shield a politician — any politician, regardless of party, ideology or affiliation – from the sound of public disapproval.”

Graham’s piece is a strong one, with many more salient points worth reading.


** Another apology
------------------------------------------------------------

ESPN’s Ryan Clark is a good NFL analyst, but he’s starting to become known for something else, too: getting into beefs with other media members ([link removed]) and then having to apologize for it. He had a dust-up recently with former ESPN staffer Robert Griffin III and ended up apologizing ([link removed]) .

Then came a particularly unseemly on-air interaction last Friday ([link removed]) . Clark, who had a solid 13-year NFL career, has become a strong analyst for ESPN on shows such as “Get Up,” “First Take” and “NFL Live.” But last week, while in a panel discussion on “Get Up,” Clark seemed to call out colleague Peter Schrager for not having played the game. After Schrager made a point, Clark said, “The thing is this, though, and we shouldn't do this on TV — and I apologize if people think this is rude — that's the nonplayer in you.”

Schrager was immediately offended, as he should have been. He said, “Don’t belittle me like that. I can come and say as three ex-players are saying one thing, and give an alternative perspective.”

Schrager is widely respected in football circles. He is well-sourced, clearly knowledgeable, and gives reasonable opinions. Did he play the game? No. But you don’t have to be a chef to know if a meal is good or bad.

Clark apologized on social media Friday night, writing, “Today, I had an interaction with my colleague @PSchrags both on and off the air that I regret. I have apologized to Peter and taken accountability with ESPN leadership. I value working with Peter and look forward to this season. My focus will remain on professionalism, teamwork, and being a better teammate moving forward.”

So, wait. Something also happened off the air?

It’s good that he apologized on social media. But how about apologizing on the same platform where he made his comments in the first place, which is on “Get Up.”

Meanwhile, as good as Clark can be on air, Front Office Sports’ Michael McCarthy and Ryan Glasspiegel wrote, “Ryan Clark Could Be On Thin Ice at ESPN After Second Public Apology Since May.” ([link removed])

McCarthy and Glasspiegel make some good points. Schrager was a recent addition to the network. He is well-liked by leadership there and is believed to have a big future at the network. ESPN is also full of nonplayer analysts. And, ESPN despises one on-air personality criticizing another. After all, such attacks weaken the credibility of on-air personalities.

I’d be surprised if ESPN punishes Clark in any noticeable way, but to suggest he is on “thin ice” might be accurate. Clark needs to really think about what he says before he says it (or tweets it).


** Terrific piece about a terrific man
------------------------------------------------------------
Hockey great Ken Dryden, right, shown here in 1979. (AP Photo)

Hall of Fame hockey goaltender Ken Dryden has passed away from cancer. He was 78. But he was so much more than a hockey player. He was a Renaissance man: a lawyer, author, college professor, advocate and executive, and he had a distinguished career as a politician in Canada.

I mention this in a media newsletter for several reasons. First, to point out the terrific work of Michael Farber, a former longtime writer at Sports Illustrated who put out this superb piece ([link removed]) on Dryden for TSN in Canada. The writing in the remembrance is exquisite and deserves your attention.

Dryden also had a notable career in media. After a spectacular, albeit brief, NHL career with the Montreal Canadiens — eight seasons, six Stanley Cups and five Vezina Trophies for the league’s best goalie — Dryden went on to write several books. His 1983 book “The Game” is considered one of the best sports books ever written, and easily the best ever written about hockey.

He was also the color analyst on ABC for, arguably, the greatest moment in sports history. When the United States beat Russia in hockey in the 1980 Olympics, Dryden could be heard saying “unbelievable,” just as announcer Al Michaels made his legendary call of “Do you believe in miracles? Yes!”

Take a few minutes to watch Farber’s piece about Dryden.


** Media tidbits
------------------------------------------------------------
* The Associated Press’ David Bauder with “CBS forbids editing of ‘Face the Nation’ interviews after complaints from Kristi Noem.” ([link removed])
* Variety’s Gene Maddaus with “Judge Dismisses Newsmax Lawsuit Against Fox News as ‘Shotgun Pleading.’” ([link removed])
* The Washington Post’s editorial board is getting roasted for its weekend editorial about the start of the NFL season: “Ready for some football.” ([link removed]) And, yeah, I have to agree. For a highly regarded publication, it’s pretty lousy, from the silly stance (uh, football is fun?) to its sappy overwriting. Awful Announcing’s Sean Keeley has a good piece about it: “Embarrassing Washington Post Editorial Board NFL column is a sign of the times.” ([link removed])


** Hot type
------------------------------------------------------------
* A fun piece to end the newsletter today and start your week at work. For The Ringer, Barry Levitt with “All 173 Cold Opens of ‘The Office,’ Ranked.” ([link removed])


** More resources for journalists
------------------------------------------------------------
* Get training to track federal climate policy rollbacks and their local impacts. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Deepen your coverage of incarcerated women and women with incarcerated family members and get the chance to apply for one of five $10,000 reporting grants. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Turn your life story into a memoir in this pioneering virtual workshop led by Poynter's Director of Craft Kristen Hare, featuring accomplished authors as guest instructors. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Airing tomorrow: Recognize story opportunities, see gaps and learn new ways to advance health equity. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Time running out to join the prestigious program that's advanced the careers of 200+ journalists of color. Apply today ([link removed]) .
* Master the tools to connect Washington decisions to local stories — essential coverage as the 2026 elections approach. Enroll now ([link removed]) .
* Access ([link removed]) Poynter’s comprehensive mental health reporting resources.
* Journalists of color: Join a free four-day workshop at Poynter's waterfront campus, where accepted applicants develop the skills needed to become powerful writers. Apply now ([link removed]) .
* New manager? Gain the critical skills you need on your path to leadership in journalism, media and technology. Apply now ([link removed]) .

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) .
[link removed]
Help Poynter strengthen journalism, truth and democracy. ([link removed])
GIVE NOW ([link removed])

ADVERTISE ([link removed]) // DONATE ([link removed]) // LEARN ([link removed]) // JOBS ([link removed])
Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here. ([link removed])
[link removed] [link removed] [link removed] [link removed] mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20for%20Poynter
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
© All rights reserved Poynter Institute 2025
801 Third Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701
If you don't want to receive email updates from Poynter, we understand.
You can change your subscription preferences ([link removed]) or unsubscribe from all Poynter emails ([link removed]) .