NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg faced renewed scrutiny this week after erroneously reporting that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring, an incident that has brought fresh attention to her decades-long career marked by multiple controversies. The 82-year-old journalist, who has covered the Supreme Court for over five decades, published a story Tuesday headlined «Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, retires,» only to quickly replace it with an editor's note stating it was «erroneously published.» Totenberg later attempted to explain the mistake on NPR's «All Things Considered,» but the blunder has reignited discussions about her past ethical lapses and reporting errors.
Totenberg's career includes a notable plagiarism incident from 1972, when she was fired from the now-defunct National Observer. According to a 1995 Columbia Journalism Review article, Totenberg took several paragraphs and verbatim quotes from a Washington Post report about former House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill without attribution. She later admitted to the mistake, telling CJR, «I was in a hurry. I used terrible judgment. The fact I used so many direct quotes obligated me morally to credit the Post. I should have been punished.» She described the incident as a learning experience, adding that «a young reporter is entitled to one mistake.»
In 1987, Totenberg faced criticism from Legal Times reporter Aaron Freiwald, who claimed her story about Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg exaggerating his resume «bore an alarming resemblance to what I had just given her,» without proper credit. Freiwald told Vanity Fair he was «very upset» by the incident. The following year, during the contentious confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas, Totenberg drew ire from Republican senators for reading portions of Anita Hill's confidential affidavit on air. Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming assailed her methods on «Nightline,» and the two engaged in a heated confrontation afterward, with Simpson calling it «absurd» to label Totenberg an objective reporter.
In 1995, Totenberg sparked outrage after suggesting that Senator Jesse Helms, who had proposed cutting AIDS research funding, would «get AIDS from a transfusion or one of his grandchildren will get it» as a form of «retributive justice.» She later called the remark «stupid» and said she would «pay for it for the rest of my life.» The comment resurfaced in a 2010 NPR interview where she acknowledged the lasting impact of the controversy.
More recently, Totenberg's undisclosed friendship with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg drew criticism after she wrote an obituary for NPR in 2020 revealing their close personal relationship. Totenberg wrote about how Ginsburg and her husband would often «scoop me up» for dinners, describing those evenings as «a kind of embrace.» The Washington Post's media reporter Paul Farhi questioned whether the friendship constituted a conflict of interest, noting that «traditional journalistic practice is to avoid such entanglements, or at least disclose them so that readers can judge for themselves.» The Poynter Institute's Tom Jones agreed, writing that it was «a close friendship that a journalist really should not have with someone they cover» and suggesting Totenberg should have recused herself from covering Ginsburg or the Supreme Court.
In 2022, Totenberg faced another controversy when her NPR report claiming Justice Neil Gorsuch refused to wear a mask on the bench despite requests from Justice Sonia Sotomayor was disputed by Supreme Court sources and a Gorsuch law clerk. The story, which reported that Sotomayor teleworked due to COVID-19 concerns, was later walked back after conflicting accounts emerged. These incidents, combined with the latest Alito retirement blunder, have led media observers to question Totenberg's judgment and the editorial oversight at NPR.
The false Alito report has particularly stung because of its high-profile nature. NPR quickly retracted the story, explaining that a misheard announcement led to the error. Totenberg's explanation on «All Things Considered» was met with skepticism from some in the media world, who found it «not plausible» that such a significant mistake could occur without more rigorous fact-checking. The incident has prompted broader discussions about the pressures facing veteran journalists in a fast-paced news environment and the importance of maintaining ethical standards.
Despite the controversies, Totenberg remains a prominent figure in legal journalism, known for her deep knowledge of the Supreme Court and her ability to break major stories. However, critics argue that her track record raises legitimate concerns about objectivity and reliability. As NPR continues to navigate the fallout from the Alito retraction, the network faces questions about its editorial processes and whether it has adequately addressed past issues. For now, Totenberg's legacy remains a complex mix of groundbreaking reporting and recurring ethical lapses, with the latest incident adding another chapter to a storied but controversial career.