[ad_1]
A New York Times editor controlled the damage on Monday as he attempted to answer readers' questions about the controversial report by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
In the night from Sunday to Sunday, the New York Times reported an explosive report of a new allegation of sexual assault by Kavanaugh, while he was at the university. The play by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, adapted from their forthcoming book, alleges corroboration of an incident in which Kavanaugh, a student at Yale, exposed himself to a classmate at a school party. Party.
However, federalist Mollie Hemingway – who reviewed a preliminary copy of the book – reported an omission and the newspaper finally revised the controversial topic after being criticized on social media.
the update included the significant detail that several friends of the alleged victim stated that they did not remember the alleged sexual assault. The paper also said for the first time that the alleged victim had refused to be interviewed and had made no further comment on the episode.
TRUMP ANNOUNCES THE HEAD OF KAVANAUGH IN NEW YORK AND ASKS FOR THE RESIGNATION OF ANY PERSON INVOLVED IN "THE HISTORY OF SMEAR"
The deputy editor of the editorial page, James Dao, explained that the reason for which the report had been filed in the "Sunday Review" of the "Opinion" section, given that longer essays and extracts from books were often published there, and that the "information analysis" label was attached "to emphasize that [Pogrebin and Kelly] are not part of the Opinion section. "
"Since the woman involved in the incident refused to be interviewed and her friends said that she did not remember what had happened, why did you included this charge in the test? " the readers asked.
"The trial included a previously unreported statement that friends allegedly pushed Mr. Kavanaugh's penis into the hand of a Yale student on a dorm night with drunken classmates. At the time of the authors' investigation, they learned that a classmate, Max Stier, had witnessed the event, later reported it to the senators and the FBI, replied Dao. . "The authors corroborated his story with two government officials, who said he found it credible." Based on this corroboration, we felt that it was warranted to mention this statement as part of 39, a larger essay. "
Critics dismissed the Q & A for excluding the explanation of why such key information had been omitted from the original story.
"The New York Times explains its article on Kavanaugh and manages to avoid answering the question of why the exculpatory evidence was omitted, what a farce," Peter Hasson of the Daily Caller tweeted.
However, when they appeared on MSNBC, Pogrebin and Kelly claimed that the information had been included in the draft but had been moved by the publishers.
"In your article project, did he include those words that have since been added to the article?" Lawrence O Donnell, host of MSNBC, asked.
"That's the case," answered Pogrebin and Kelly.
"So, somewhere in the editing process, these words were cut off," O Donnell explained in a concern for clarification.
Pogrebin went on to explain that the Times did not usually include any names of victims and that she thought that when the editors had removed the name, the crucial information she could not remember was also removed.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"So, I think it was just some sort of editing, you know, done in the rush of the editing process," added Pogrebin.
"Have you been involved in the decision to change that and make the correction – adding it to the room online?" O Donnell followed.
"We discussed it," said Pogrebin. "We felt that there was so much heat, everyone grasped various aspects that we certainly did not want it to be a problem anymore and that we had never intended it. to mislead in any way, we wanted to give as much history as possible ".
[ad_2]
Source link