Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Wife Martha-Ann's Controversial Remarks on Pride Flag and Media Organizations Surface in Separate Recordings

Washington D.C., District of Columbia United States of America
Alito spoke negatively about media organizations, specifically ProPublica, for their reporting on Supreme Court ethics.
Martha-Alito expressed frustration about a Pride flag in her neighborhood and suggested flying a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag as a response. Alito advised against it.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and his wife Martha-Ann made controversial remarks in separate recordings obtained by media outlets.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Wife Martha-Ann's Controversial Remarks on Pride Flag and Media Organizations Surface in Separate Recordings

In recent developments, two recordings have surfaced featuring Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and his wife Martha-Ann in separate conversations. The first recording, obtained by CNN, shows Martha-Ann expressing frustration about having to look at a Pride flag in her neighborhood and suggesting flying a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag as a response. In the second recording, obtained by various news outlets including The New York Times and Rolling Stone, Justice Alito is heard speaking negatively about media organizations such as ProPublica for their reporting on Supreme Court ethics.

The first recording was made during a black-tie event at the Supreme Court last week. Martha-Ann Alito expressed her displeasure with the Pride flag in her neighborhood and suggested flying a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag as a response. Her husband, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., advised against putting up a flag in response to the Pride flag.

The second recording was made during the same event and shows Justice Alito expressing his disdain for journalists who have written negatively about him or his wife in the past. He described ProPublica, a news organization that has reported on Supreme Court ethics, as getting a lot of money and having spent a fortune investigating justices like Clarence Thomas and himself. The reporting from ProPublica prompted the Supreme Court to issue a new code of conduct in November 2023.

It is important to note that these recordings were obtained without the consent of those involved, which raises ethical concerns. It is also worth noting that Justice Alito's comments about media organizations should be taken in context and not as an attack on journalism as a whole.

The recording with Martha-Ann Alito was shared online by Lauren Windsor, who describes herself as a documentary filmmaker and advocacy journalist. The recordings of Justice Alito were obtained by various news outlets including Rolling Stone, The New York Times, and CNN.



Confidence

85%

Doubts
  • It is unclear if the context of Martha-Alito's comments about flying a flag were taken out of context.
  • The authenticity of the recordings has not been verified.

Sources

73%

  • Unique Points
    • Liberal filmmaker Lauren Windsor recorded Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts at a June 3 dinner without their consent.
    • Joy Behar expressed her discomfort with the recordings but felt someone needed to expose the justices due to their biased decisions.
    • Sara Haines believed Windsor presented herself as something she wasn’t and handled the interactions poorly.
    • Whoopi Goldberg disagreed with her co-hosts, stating that Windsor was doing what Democrats have been calling for by bringing attention to the justices’ religious beliefs.
  • Accuracy
    • Lauren Windsor recorded Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts at a June 3 dinner without their consent.
    • Sunny Hostin was disappointed by the recordings but also expressed concerns about taking snippets out of context and obtaining recordings without consent.
  • Deception (30%)
    The article contains selective reporting as the author only reports details that support the co-hosts' opinions about the recordings of Supreme Court Justices Alito and Roberts. The author also uses emotional manipulation by implying that the justices are running around 'arrogant' and 'losing objectivity', which is a loaded statement. Furthermore, there is no disclosure of sources in the article.
    • Co-host Sunny Hostin agreed, with a caveat. I am extremely disappointed at what I heard, but I also am not comfortable with snippets of tape recordings without consent being taken out of context.
    • Joy Behar said somebody has to expose them because they are running around arrogant, and they have the whole GOP on their side, and we’re losing the Supreme Court’s objectivity.
    • The View co-hosts admitted on Tuesday that they had a problem with the secret recordings of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts because they could be 'altered'.
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The author makes an appeal to authority when she states 'Somebody needs to expose them because they are running around arrogant, and they have the whole GOP on their side, and we’re losing the Supreme Court’s objectivity and somebody needs to expose them.' This is a fallacious argument as it assumes that just because someone has power or influence, they are inherently wrong. It also implies that those who are 'exposing' the justices are in the right, without providing any evidence or reasoning for this assumption.
    • Somebody needs to expose them because they are running around arrogant, and they have the whole GOP on their side, and we’re losing the Supreme Court’s objectivity and somebody needs to expose them.
  • Bias (80%)
    The author expresses her personal opinion that someone needs to 'expose' the Supreme Court justices due to their perceived bias and pro-theocracy leanings. She also uses language that depicts them as arrogant and losing objectivity.
    • "In my lifetime as an attorney, I never knew the religion of the Supreme Court justices. I never knew the political affiliations of the Supreme Court justices,"
      • "somebody has to expose them because they are running around arrogant, and they have the whole GOP on their side, and we’re losing the Supreme Court’s objectivity and somebody needs to expose them,"
      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication

      64%

      • Unique Points
        • In a secret recording, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito lashes out at news organization ProPublica, describing its coverage of the Supreme Court as driven by political animus.
        • The recording was provided exclusively to Rolling Stone by Lauren Windsor, who has paid annual dues to the society and spent $500 for a ticket to attend the dinner.
        • Alito volunteered that ProPublica gets a lot of money and has spent a fortune investigating justices like Clarence Thomas and himself.
        • ProPublica’s reporting prompted the Supreme Court to issue a new code of conduct in November 2023, signed by all nine justices.
        • Though Alito dismissed ProPublica’s reporting as focused on ‘little’ things, the outlet’s stories led to changes in disclosure practices among some justices.
      • Accuracy
        • ProPublica's reporting prompted the Supreme Court to issue a new code of conduct in November 2023, signed by all nine justices.
      • Deception (30%)
        The authors make editorializing statements by implying that ProPublica's reporting is driven by political animus and that they only investigate justices because of their decisions. They also selectively report details about ProPublica's investigations, focusing on the fact that they received recordings of Alito and his wife at a dinner, while ignoring the substantive findings of their reporting. The authors do not disclose any sources for their information.
        • In the second recording, Windsor spoke with the justice’s wife, Martha-Ann Alito...
        • They don’t like our decisions.
        • ProPublica gets a lot of money, and they have spent a fortune investigating Clarence Thomas... They look for any little thing they can find, and they try to make something out of it.
      • Fallacies (100%)
        None Found At Time Of Publication
      • Bias (5%)
        The authors accuse Justice Alito of making baseless claims about ProPublica being influenced by its donors and suggesting that their investigative reporting is driven by political animus. This is an example of monetary bias as they are implying that the organization's financial backing affects its journalistic integrity.
        • In essence, Alito is now accusing ProPublica of being unduly influenced by the media organization’s own financial patrons.
          • ProPublica gets a lot of money, and they have spent a fortune investigating Clarence Thomas... They look for any little thing they can find, and they try to make something out of it.
            • They don’t like our decisions, and they don’t like how they anticipate we may decide some cases that are coming up. That’s the beginning of the end of it.
            • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication
            • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
              None Found At Time Of Publication

            72%

            • Unique Points
              • Justice Alito’s wife, Martha-Ann, expressed frustration about having to look at a Pride flag in her neighborhood
              • Martha-Ann Alito suggested flying a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag as a response to the Pride flag
              • Justice Samuel A. Alito advised against putting up a flag in response to the Pride flag
              • Martha-Ann Alito mentioned planning to change flags and create her own design with the message ‘shame’ in Italian
            • Accuracy
              • Justice Alito's wife, Martha-Ann, expressed frustration about having to look at a Pride flag in her neighborhood
            • Deception (30%)
              The author, Abbie VanSickle, reports on a secretly recorded conversation between Martha-Ann Alito and a woman posing as a conservative supporter. The article does not disclose that the recording was edited before being published. This is an example of selective reporting and manipulation by omission.
              • Already a subscriber? Log in.
              • Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe Subscribe.
              • The comments from Ms. Alito were posted online late Monday by Ms. Windsor, who describes herself as a documentary filmmaker and advocacy journalist.
            • Fallacies (85%)
              The author, Abbie VanSickle, reports on Martha-Ann Alito's comments during a secretly recorded conversation. While there is no overt logical fallacy in the article itself, the author does not provide any context or analysis of Martha-Ann Alito's statements beyond reporting them. This lack of critical examination could be seen as an appeal to emotion, as the reader is left to form their own opinions about Martha-Ann Alito's comments without any guidance from the author. Additionally, there are several instances of inflammatory rhetoric used in the article, such as referring to
              • “You know what I want?” the justice’s wife said to the woman, Lauren Windsor, who secretly recorded the conversation during a black-tie event last week at the Supreme Court. “I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month.”
              • “When you are free of this nonsense,” “I’m putting it up and I’m going to send them a message every day, maybe every week. I’ll be changing the flags.”
              • “shame.”
            • Bias (80%)
              The author, Abbie VanSickle, reports Martha-Ann Alito's desire to fly a Catholic flag in response to a Pride flag and her husband's objection. This can be seen as an example of religious bias as the author is focusing on one specific religious symbol versus another.
              • She added that she would come up with her own flag, which would be white with yellow and orange flames and read, in Italian, shame.
                • You know what I want? I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag because I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month.
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication

                66%

                • Unique Points
                  • Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's wife, Martha-Alito, was recorded making threatening comments towards the media during a dinner event.
                  • Martha-Alito spoke about seeking revenge against the media with a five-year defamation statute of limitations in mind.
                  • She expressed her disdain for journalists who have written negatively about her or her husband in the past.
                • Accuracy
                  • Martha-Ann Alito spoke about seeking revenge against the media with a five-year defamation statute of limitations in mind.
                  • Martha-Alito expressed her disdain for journalists who have written negatively about her or her husband in the past.
                • Deception (30%)
                  The author uses emotional manipulation by describing Martha-Ann Alito's comments as 'not pretty' and 'a mess'. The author also engages in selective reporting by only mentioning parts of Martha-Ann Alito's comments that support the negative narrative about her. There is no clear editorializing or pontification from the author, but they do imply a negative opinion of Martha-Ann Alito.
                  • It was a mess.
                  • The truth isn’t pretty.
                • Fallacies (80%)
                  Edith Olmsted's article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when Alito states, 'The media!' in response to being asked who she meant by 'they' and her desire to get revenge. This implies that the media is a unified entity with a specific intent towards her, which is not necessarily true.
                  • 'The media!' in response to being asked who she meant by 'they' and her desire to get revenge.
                  • Alito was reportedly enthusiastic about Trump’s promise to expand U.S. libel laws to make it significantly easier to sue news outlets for their coverage.
                • Bias (50%)
                  The author demonstrates clear bias against Martha-Ann Alito by using derogatory language to describe her and implying that she is seeking revenge against the media. The author also quotes Martha-Ann making threatening statements towards the media.
                  • “It’s OK because if they come back to me, I’ll get them.”
                    • “The media!”
                    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                      None Found At Time Of Publication
                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                      None Found At Time Of Publication

                    92%

                    • Unique Points
                      • Lauren Windsor secretly recorded conversations with Martha Alito representing herself as a religious conservative.
                      • During the separate conversations, this fact was not mentioned in any of the other articles.
                    • Accuracy
                      • ]Lauren Windsor represented herself as a religious conservative[]
                      • []During the separate conversations, Windsor represented herself as something she wasn't[]
                    • Deception (100%)
                      None Found At Time Of Publication
                    • Fallacies (100%)
                      None Found At Time Of Publication
                    • Bias (100%)
                      None Found At Time Of Publication
                    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                      None Found At Time Of Publication
                    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                      None Found At Time Of Publication