[ad_1]
All political actors were ready to start, Democrats from 2020 calling for Brett Kavanaugh to be returned to the Supreme Court until President Trump, claiming that the media was telling lies about him.
But the story of the New York Times that sparked the partisan bribes was fatally flawed.
So defective, in fact, early Sunday morning, I was wondering if I should cover the story of "Media Buzz". I told my staff that I was torn because the source was so fine that I was not sure if I wanted to help trumpet charges of this magnitude against a sitting judge.
After all, in a review section essay adapted from their next book, reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly have cited that as a second-hand source. They did not even talk to this source, a former Yale classmate named Max Stier, directly. They got his account from two anonymous "officials" who had spoken to him.
NYT UPDATES KAVANAUGH'S "BOMBSHELL" TO INDICATE THAT THE ACCUMER DOES NOT RECALL A PRESUMPTED ACCIDENT
On this fragile basis, the story was that Kavanaugh had been exposed to a second night in a dormitory drunk almost forty years ago. (Deborah Ramirez never corroborated the same accusations during her audacious confirmation hearings.) In addition, the story goes that Kavanaugh was pushed to a student, who inadvertently touched her genitals while trying to neutralize him. .
Two hours later, two things changed my mind. The first was the president's tweets, which called the accusations "lies," claiming that Kavanaugh should start suing the people and, in a strange gap, that the Justice Department should save him. (Camp Kavanaugh, on the other hand, chose not to give oxygen to the story by commenting.)
The second factor was when I got the phone and I was able to get a source to give me the main pages of the book "Brett Kavanaugh's Education: An Education".
I was stunned to find that the alleged victim – the woman allegedly exposed under the name of Kavanaugh – reportedly dropped the pants – did not want to comment on the incident, but "many of her friends said that she did not remember it. "
This striking phrase which, in my opinion, completely refutes the allegation, does not appear anywhere in The Times newspaper of the same reporters. The woman would have probably remembered such a traumatic incident.
On this basis, I went on the air and severely criticized the Times' story. Many of the journalism controversies I cover have shades of gray; this one was not a close call.
SIGN UP FOR THE PODCAST BUZZMETER MEDIA MEDIA, A RIFF OF THE MOST HISTORIC DAYS
The Times admitted its mistake yesterday with a note from the publisher stating that information about the alleged victim (named in the book, but that I see no reason to identify) should have been included in the # 39; section. But this decision must have been made late because the correction appears only online, not in the print edition.
On Sunday, there were few glaring shortcomings in the Times, in part because I believe many journalists are reluctant to take the so-called logbook, and Kavanaugh's allegations seemed juicy. In fact, many media were content to repeat the story of the Times: new charges against Judge Kavanaugh! Trump responds! – without even noting the unstable supply sources.
In addition, the pages of the book that I obtained recognized that at least two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were aware of last year's allegation and did nothing. I learned that even some Democrats in the panel did not think it was worth mentioning.
When I found the air yesterday morning, I received the first public comment of the camp of justice. A source close to Kavanaugh said about the Times: "It was a disgusting effort to denigrate Judge Kavanaugh for selling a few books. There is nothing new here: the woman who experienced this incident does not remember it. And the Senate Democrats had this information before Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation, but they never spoke about it.
And it turns out that another major newspaper has forwarded the allegations:
"Last year, the Washington Post confirmed that two intermediaries had relayed such a claim to lawmakers and the FBI. The post did not publish any story in part because the intermediaries refused to identify the alleged witness and that the woman allegedly involved refused to comment.
There were other details, such as Max Stier described only as a respected attorney, but not as someone who defends Bill Clinton against sexual allegations, which gave the impression to tip the scales.
Several Democratic presidential candidates – Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Cory Booker and others – have seized history to demand the removal of Kavanaugh. This, of course, is part of the story, but I wonder if they will regret not having been judged before seeing the book. As Mitch McConnell pointed out yesterday in the Senate, even after the correction, none of the contenders for 2020 has retreated.
One last point: I still can not believe the Times has promoted the story with the following disgusting tweet:
"Having a penis embedded in your face during an intoxicated evening can seem like a safe amusement. But when Brett Kavanaugh pointed it out, Deborah Ramirez confirmed that she did not belong to Yale. "
Fun safe?
The newspaper's deputy editor, James Dao, apologized, describing the publication as "shocking". He is right.
[ad_2]
Source link