NYT continues to set fire to what little credibility left
Sept 16, 2019 21:45:49 GMT -5
robeiae likes this
Post by Optimus on Sept 16, 2019 21:45:49 GMT -5
Perhaps you saw this today...
So, some guy suddenly comes out and says that he saw Kavannaugh pull his little gavel out to an unnamed woman nearly 4 decades ago, and they print that accusation as fact. They also ran a defamatory tweet about it to go along with their defamatory story.
I wonder why?
Well, reason #1 is likely the NYT's recent jerking the wheel of their Wokemobile so hard to the left you'd think they'd seen a deer in the street and, #2...
Ah, so that's it. Two of their reporters are about to release a (likely incredibly biased and, apparently, factually questionable) book, and this unfounded story is in it.
Oh, but they "corroborated" it by asking two guys whom the original story teller also told his bullshit story to.
THAT'S NOT CORROBORATION. THAT IS 4TH PARTY HEARSAY.
Today, they updated the story to add a correction stating that they never spoke to the woman and all of her friends say she doesn't even remember it. In other words, they added a correction to point out that they ran this story without a shred of evidence.
I don't like Kavanaugh at all, but if he sues the ever-loving shit out of the NYT for libel, I'll probably take some pleasure watching all of that go down.
Additionally, this latest activism-masquerading-as-journalism fuck up comes on the heels of:
1) NYTs editors, whose journalists think it's OK to attack people for old tweets, recently clutched their pearls when it happened to them, (lest we forget, they also hired Sarah Jeong, whose entire shtick was posting racist tweets)
2) the "Bret Stephens comes out as a hypersensitive, snowflakey douchebag" debacle,
3) and a very good, spot on article by Andrew Sullivan:
I used to really like the NYT but they've lost all credibility now and I'm not sure they'll ever be able to recover unless they fire the majority of their editors and staff - in other words, all the mouth-frothing activists - and start over with real objective journalists reporting real objective news.
I'm not gonna hold my breath, though.
The New York Times on Monday added a correction to a report accusing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct.
The correction notes that friends of the woman allegedly involved in the incident with Kavanaugh during college say she does not recall it.
The Times in the story published Saturday reported a former classmate of Kavanaugh's named Max Stier said he witnessed the now-justice expose himself and force a female classmate to touch his penis at a dorm party. The Times said it corroborated the story with two other officials who had heard the same report from Stier.
However, the woman involved in the alleged incident did not speak to the Times and, according to the correction, her friends say she does not recall that it happened.
The correction notes that friends of the woman allegedly involved in the incident with Kavanaugh during college say she does not recall it.
The Times in the story published Saturday reported a former classmate of Kavanaugh's named Max Stier said he witnessed the now-justice expose himself and force a female classmate to touch his penis at a dorm party. The Times said it corroborated the story with two other officials who had heard the same report from Stier.
However, the woman involved in the alleged incident did not speak to the Times and, according to the correction, her friends say she does not recall that it happened.
So, some guy suddenly comes out and says that he saw Kavannaugh pull his little gavel out to an unnamed woman nearly 4 decades ago, and they print that accusation as fact. They also ran a defamatory tweet about it to go along with their defamatory story.
I wonder why?
Well, reason #1 is likely the NYT's recent jerking the wheel of their Wokemobile so hard to the left you'd think they'd seen a deer in the street and, #2...
The new allegation regarding an unnamed woman stems from an upcoming book titled "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation" by New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.
Ah, so that's it. Two of their reporters are about to release a (likely incredibly biased and, apparently, factually questionable) book, and this unfounded story is in it.
Oh, but they "corroborated" it by asking two guys whom the original story teller also told his bullshit story to.
THAT'S NOT CORROBORATION. THAT IS 4TH PARTY HEARSAY.
Today, they updated the story to add a correction stating that they never spoke to the woman and all of her friends say she doesn't even remember it. In other words, they added a correction to point out that they ran this story without a shred of evidence.
I don't like Kavanaugh at all, but if he sues the ever-loving shit out of the NYT for libel, I'll probably take some pleasure watching all of that go down.
Additionally, this latest activism-masquerading-as-journalism fuck up comes on the heels of:
1) NYTs editors, whose journalists think it's OK to attack people for old tweets, recently clutched their pearls when it happened to them, (lest we forget, they also hired Sarah Jeong, whose entire shtick was posting racist tweets)
2) the "Bret Stephens comes out as a hypersensitive, snowflakey douchebag" debacle,
3) and a very good, spot on article by Andrew Sullivan:
The New York Times, by its executive editor’s own admission, is increasingly engaged in a project of reporting everything through the prism of white supremacy and critical race theory, in order to “teach” its readers to think in these crudely reductionist and racial terms. That’s why this issue wasn’t called, say, “special issue”, but a “project”. It’s as much activism as journalism. And that’s the reason I’m dwelling on this a few weeks later. I’m constantly told that critical race theory is secluded on college campuses, and has no impact outside of them … and yet the newspaper of record, in a dizzyingly short space of time, is now captive to it. Its magazine covers the legacy of slavery not with a variety of scholars, or a diversity of views, but with critical race theory, espoused almost exclusively by black writers, as its sole interpretative mechanism.
...
...But it is extremely telling that this is not merely aired in the paper of record (as it should be), but that it is aggressively presented as objective reality. That’s propaganda, directed, as we now know, from the very top — and now being marched through the entire educational system to achieve a specific end. To present a truth as the truth is, in fact, a deception. And it is hard to trust a paper engaged in trying to deceive its readers in order for its radical reporters and weak editors to transform the world.
...
...But it is extremely telling that this is not merely aired in the paper of record (as it should be), but that it is aggressively presented as objective reality. That’s propaganda, directed, as we now know, from the very top — and now being marched through the entire educational system to achieve a specific end. To present a truth as the truth is, in fact, a deception. And it is hard to trust a paper engaged in trying to deceive its readers in order for its radical reporters and weak editors to transform the world.
I used to really like the NYT but they've lost all credibility now and I'm not sure they'll ever be able to recover unless they fire the majority of their editors and staff - in other words, all the mouth-frothing activists - and start over with real objective journalists reporting real objective news.
I'm not gonna hold my breath, though.
