web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > New York Times

Kavanaugh book authors: It sure is a shame that people rushed to judgment about impeaching him after that NYT story

Westlake Legal Group b-16 Kavanaugh book authors: It sure is a shame that people rushed to judgment about impeaching him after that NYT story The Blog pogrebin nyt New York Times kelly kavanaugh impeachment

It really is wacky how readers overreacted to a new claim in the country’s most respected paper that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman while in college — after the story neglected to mention that the supposed victim doesn’t remember it happening.

I grudgingly admire the sheer balls it takes for these two to blame readers for flying off the handle about a piece which they and their editors at the Times presented in the worst possible light for their subject. And not just with the new assault allegation. Remember, they grossly oversold how much corroboration there was for Deborah Ramirez’s original claim of an assault by Kavanaugh. And they neglected to showcase the bombshell detail that Ford’s friend, Leland Keyser, doesn’t believe Ford’s story to this day but felt threatened if she didn’t say otherwise.

If you weren’t feeling up to drink on a Friday night, you will soon.

“It’s dismaying to see the rush to judgment,” said Kate Kelly, a New York Times reporter and co-author of “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” in an interview on the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery.”

“We definitely have been grappling with it for sure,” said co-author and fellow Times reporter Robin Pogrebin when asked about the firestorm the initial accounts of their book triggered. “There was a sense going into this that nuance doesn’t make headlines, … that people were going to pull stuff out. … People saw what they wanted to see before learning any of the facts, or didn’t even make much of an effort to pay attention to the facts.”

Omit the key facts, then scold readers for not paying attention to them. It’s like a “Where’s Waldo?” book where the authors forgot to include Waldo.

Here’s something else about Kavanaugh that might have helped restrain the “rush to judgment” if it had been given a more prominent place in the Times piece:

The authors also noted that they had found no evidence of Kavanaugh mistreating women as an adult — to the contrary, he had heavily promoted and mentored them — and that the image of him in some circles as a hard-right conservative was off. “This is a jurist who is known for his thoughtfulness, who’s known for pragmatism, and less kind of predictably ideological,” said Kelly.

In other words, basically the exact opposite of the type of guy you would think he was from the new — unsupported — sexual assault allegation.

Maybe there’ll be a little justice, though. Not now, not soon, but next fall in the form of a backlash to the smear campaign at the polls. Harry Enten argues that Kavanaugh politics are bad politics for Democrats:

Indeed, the 2018 exit polls suggest that Kavanaugh was a net negative for Democrats across the Senate landscape. One question on some state exit polls asked voters whether a senator’s Kavanaugh nomination vote was important to them. In every state but one (Florida) where the Republican senator voted for Kavanaugh or the Democratic senator voted against him, it was a net negative for the Democratic Senate nominee.

In these seven states (all but one carried by Trump in 2016), those who said a senator’s Kavanaugh vote was important to their choice for Senate were far more likely to vote Republican for Senate. In these states, the Republican Senate candidates won by an average of 18 points among those who said a senator’s Kavanaugh vote was important to them. Among those who said the Kavanaugh vote wasn’t important, the Democratic Senate candidate won by an average of 7 points.

Democrats are going to need to win at least a couple of seats in red states next year in order to take back a Senate majority. Did the “rush to judgment” this past week make that easier for them or harder?

Even so, they’ll never stop targeting him, writes Peggy Noonan. Exit quotation: “[P]rogressives have to prove they were right to advance the sexual-assault accusations of Christine Blasey Ford. They lost that battle; Justice Kavanaugh sits on the court. They won’t stop the assault until they can prove they were right to launch it.”

The post Kavanaugh book authors: It sure is a shame that people rushed to judgment about impeaching him after that NYT story appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group b-16-300x153 Kavanaugh book authors: It sure is a shame that people rushed to judgment about impeaching him after that NYT story The Blog pogrebin nyt New York Times kelly kavanaugh impeachment   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Left Accuses President Trump and Conservatives Of Taking Advantage Of the New York Times’s Libel Of Justice Kavanaugh

What started out as a cynical and ugly effort by the New York Times to drag the name of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh through the mud…again…and to help the Democrats delegitimize the Supreme Court has blown up in their face.

Two New York Times reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, who also have a new book coming out on the Kavanaugh hearings, had an story based on that book appear in the New York Times “Sunday Review” that purported to reveal a new instance of alleged inappropriate conduct by Kavanaugh at Yale. The only problem was that in the book, the authors say that the alleged victim says she doesn’t remember it happening. Pogrebin and Kelly threw their editors under the bus during a cable television appearance saying they had included that fact in their draft of the story. By yesterday, they were reduced to blaming FoxNews.

Read all of our Kavanugh coveage.

Since the day of the first article, President Trump has been in the forefront of the effort to stuff this story deep up the backside of the New York Times.

Now the left is claiming that President Trump is [show my shocked face] milking the entire episode: Trump milks the Kavanaugh backlash.

For Team Trump, the ongoing focus on Kavanaugh is a political gift. The president and his aides are latching on to the uproar to energize conservatives about another hot-button emotional issue that resonates with the base, a move that can support GOP fundraising and ultimately bolster get-out-the-vote efforts.

“Grabbing guns and smearing Supreme Court Justices? Next the Democrats will hold up a dismembered eight-month-old fetus!” said Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president. “They are handing the election to President Trump.”

The Kavanaugh allegations continue to carry such weight because they will set the tone for the next Supreme Court vacancy and nomination process regardless of the president in office.

“This is a warning to anyone who will put their names out there for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat when it becomes vacant. This is all about Ginsburg,” said one conservative activist. “This is not going away. This ripped the scab off of what happened last summer and that is why people are so upset.”

A senior administration official rebutted this idea, however. “The White House is not concerned that the shameful episode involving The New York Times will impact the quality of future federal court appointees at any level.”

I think that any relatively sane conservative who is nominated to the Supreme Court would anticipate a vicious and unhinged campaign of character assassination that, like the attacks on Kavanaugh, are totally unmoored from reality. They have to know stuff is just going to be made up out of whole cloth and the salaciousness of the allegations used to demand further investigation. What this incident is signaling, in addition to how the nominee will be attacked, is that the President and his administration will fight back on behalf of their nominee. That will go a long way towards attracting an nominee who will be an actual conservative and not a stealth candidate like David Souter or Anthony Kennedy who made it to the Supreme Court because they really didn’t seem to believe in anything…until they showed they were actually fairly liberal.

The Times came under intense scrutiny for its Kavanaugh story, which ran as an excerpt in the book review section, because it left out a crucial detail that the woman who was allegedly harassed by Kavanaugh at a drunken Yale party has told friends she does not remember the incident, and she declined to be interviewed by Times reporters.

The newspaper also put out an insensitive tweet, since deleted, promoting the Sunday story. Both liberal and conservative activists criticized it because they said it trivialized sexual assault, misconduct and victims with its breezy tone.

I think this is another key data point in what will eventually be seen as a massive “own goal” by the New York Times. What they did wasn’t even supported by their sisters-in-arms in the liberal media. In fact, what the New York Times managed to do was shock the vestigial bit of conscience that remained in the world of professional journalism by actually lying about the facts of the story. This will not be forgotten. Between Avenatti, and Blasey Ford, and now the New York Times future allegations will face a bit of a higher bar before being accepted.

Conservatives have been in overdrive trying to elevate boogeymen out of the Times’ Kavanaugh piece. They’ve used the publication’s snafus as an opportunity to bash and try to weaken the integrity of the institution, which has published a raft of critical coverage of the Trump administration.

Very true. The New York Times and other media have completely torched their credibility with their cheap and nasty hits on an honorable man. The nation realizes what went on and they will be looking for it again in the future. It will be much easier for those of us defending President Trump’s next nomination to point back to this disgraceful incident and show how it is actually a template of behavior and not merely an unfortunate accident.

So, yes, we are milking it. And we’re milking it for all the reasons stated in the article. But you know what, if there is no lactating cow, you really can’t milk anything.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post The Left Accuses President Trump and Conservatives Of Taking Advantage Of the New York Times’s Libel Of Justice Kavanaugh appeared first on RedState.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

NYT reporters: Kavanaugh was willing to talk to us — but wanted us to lie and say we never spoke to him

Westlake Legal Group pk NYT reporters: Kavanaugh was willing to talk to us — but wanted us to lie and say we never spoke to him The Blog source pogrebin on background nyt New York Times kelly kavanaugh book

How can we begin to assess the truth of this claim after the fiasco of the past week? No one who’s followed the fallout from the Times’s hit piece on Kavanaugh even casually can possibly trust these two to give them the full truth.

They say they reached out to Kavanaugh and his representative for an interview while writing their book and found him willing. Naturally he’d want to seize an opportunity to get his side of the story into an investigation into his past that was likely to make news. But his spokesman supposedly said that he wanted to do it off the record, no doubt figuring that going on the record would turn out to be a major publicity coup for the book and its authors. Imagine if he let himself quoted by name — “KAVANAUGH SPEAKS ABOUT HIS PAST,” with all the hype that would entail — and the resulting book turned out to be a hatchet job.

So he didn’t want to help them promote the book by going on the record but he was willing to talk to them “on background.” That’s … a basic, basic practice in journalism, the opposite of newsworthy. But, go figure, this time it did make news:

“Asked them to lie”? Here’s what HuffPo says:

New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly said that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed to let them interview him for their upcoming book ― as long as they would publicly lie about it.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington on Wednesday, Kelly and Pogrebin said that Kavanaugh told them he would talk to the reporters to provide them with background information as long as they falsely noted in the book that he declined to be interviewed.

A representative for Kavanaugh told The Hill’s chief Washington correspondent Saagar Enjeti that they asked the Times reporters to include a line saying that “Kavanaugh declined to comment” if the justice agreed to talk with them about the book.

I ask this in earnest: How is a situation like this normally handled by reporters? If you have a source that’s willing to speak but only off the record, you’re lying to readers at least *implicitly* by using their information in the story without acknowledging them as a source. For instance, if you’re working on a story about the White House and Trump offers to set you straight “on background” about what’s happening, and then you attribute what he tells you to “a source familiar with Trump’s thinking,” you’re encouraging the reader to believe, falsely, that someone other than the president gave you the information. It’s not a direct lie but it’s misleading.

The difference in this case according to Pogrebin and Kelly is that Kavanaugh (per his rep) wanted them to lie *explicitly,* by including a line claiming that he declined to comment. That would have been false: He declined to comment on the record but he didn’t decline to comment. I suppose they could have written “Kavanaugh declined to comment on the record” but the last part would have been a strong clue to readers that Kavanaugh did comment on background. His fingerprints still would have been on the book. He wanted them off completely and wanted the authors to lie to make it happen. They wouldn’t do it because they care about ethics ‘n stuff, as we’ve seen repeatedly this past week.

Conn Carroll is Mike Lee’s press secretary. Here’s his take on it:

Question, then. In the scenario above, in which Trump talks to a reporter on background, how should the reporter address his refusal to comment on the record? If they write “The president didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment,” that’s the same sort of out-and-out lie that Pogrebin and Kelly claim Kavanaugh wanted. He did respond to requests for comment, after all. Should the reporter instead omit any reference in the story to contacting Trump for comment? That would avoid an outright lie, but it’s good journalistic practice to note that you sought comment from the subject of a story even if the subject declines to say anything. It’d be weird to write a story about Trump, in which Trump commented on background, and include not a single word either way about whether the president was contacted about it.

I don’t know what the answer is but I also don’t know why anyone would trust Kelly and Pogrebin to give the warts-and-all truth about what was said between them and Kavanaugh at this stage. In fact, Jeryl Bier asks a good question: Since their book is all about the credibility of the major players in the Kavanaugh saga, beginning with the justice himself, why didn’t they include the fact that he allegedly wanted them to lie about whether he was a source? That would have been useful to readers to know. Instead they subject seems to have come up only in interviews. Why?

Here they are this morning being pressed on this subject.

The post NYT reporters: Kavanaugh was willing to talk to us — but wanted us to lie and say we never spoke to him appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group pk-300x159 NYT reporters: Kavanaugh was willing to talk to us — but wanted us to lie and say we never spoke to him The Blog source pogrebin on background nyt New York Times kelly kavanaugh book   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Writer Behind NYT’s Kavanaugh Smear Finds the True Culprit Behind the Outrage: Fox News (Because of Course)

Westlake Legal Group brett-kavanaugh-hearing-SCREENSHOT-620x394 Writer Behind NYT’s Kavanaugh Smear Finds the True Culprit Behind the Outrage: Fox News (Because of Course) Supreme Court Social Media SCOTUS Robin Pogrebin Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times Media Judicial journalism It Is Okay To Laugh Front Page Stories Front Page fox news Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception

When last we left you, New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly were blaming the paper’s editorial staff for cutting out a crucial section of their weekend hit piece on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Pogrebin and Kelly have insisted that they included the exculpatory information which noted that the alleged victim of an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh has no recollection of it happening. The authors also allege that somehow during the editing process that information was was innocently removed.

Few people are buying it, which is quite possibly why Pogrebin shifted gears on the Twitter machine earlier today by pulling a tactic straight out of the leftist playbook: When all else fails, blame Fox News.

Here’s what Pogrebin tweeted:

Vox’s leading Democratic party shill Aaron Rupar asserted in the piece that Fox News has misleadingly “described changes the New York Times made to Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s story as a ‘correction’ at least a dozen times.”

Rupar then states that “there’s just one problem — the Times did not, in fact, ‘correct’ anything. To make a ‘correction’ to a story indicates something was factually wrong.”

The problem with Rupar’s piece and Pogrebin retweeting it is that Pogrebin herself has used the term “corrected” to describe the paper taking action to add the information to the story (h/t: Twitchy):

And as Jeryl Bier notes, by Vox’s own standards they label fixing the omission of relevant information from a news story as a … correction:

Regardless of how Pogrebin and Vox labeled the Times’ corrective actions, the whole debate is weak sauce, and a pathetic attempt at shifting the blame elsewhere for failures that can ultimately only be pinned on the two people who wrote the original piece and those who “proofed” it before it went to press:

Pogrebin and Kelly have shown no shame when it comes to the pretzels they twist themselves into to avoid blame for what happened. So their critics should, in turn, shown no mercy in their constructive criticisms. Fair is fair.

Westlake Legal Group giphy Writer Behind NYT’s Kavanaugh Smear Finds the True Culprit Behind the Outrage: Fox News (Because of Course) Supreme Court Social Media SCOTUS Robin Pogrebin Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times Media Judicial journalism It Is Okay To Laugh Front Page Stories Front Page fox news Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Writer Behind NYT’s Kavanaugh Smear Finds the True Culprit Behind the Outrage: Fox News (Because of Course) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group brett-kavanaugh-hearing-SCREENSHOT-300x191 Writer Behind NYT’s Kavanaugh Smear Finds the True Culprit Behind the Outrage: Fox News (Because of Course) Supreme Court Social Media SCOTUS Robin Pogrebin Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times Media Judicial journalism It Is Okay To Laugh Front Page Stories Front Page fox news Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WaPo: Dems retreat on Kavanaugh after Republicans pounce on … “journalistic mishap”?

Westlake Legal Group facepalm-newspaper WaPo: Dems retreat on Kavanaugh after Republicans pounce on … “journalistic mishap”? WaPo The Blog Republicans pounce! New York Times Max Stier liberal media bias Leland Keyser christine blasey ford character assassination

Hey, we’re always up for another fun edition of Republicans Pounce!Westlake Legal Group 2122 WaPo: Dems retreat on Kavanaugh after Republicans pounce on … “journalistic mishap”? WaPo The Blog Republicans pounce! New York Times Max Stier liberal media bias Leland Keyser christine blasey ford character assassination   , but this example is more jaw-dropping than usual. The Washington Post’s Paul Kane reports on the “whiplash moment” currently befalling Democrats as the New York Times’ rehashed smear job on Brett Kavanaugh comes apart. Kane notes that Republicans have gone on offense right in the lead, while waiting more than a dozen paragraphs to note that Democrats actually pounced first.

Kane laments this “familiar refrain,” which is perhaps a little more familiar than even Kane appreciates:

Since the first allegations emerged a year ago Monday, in a Washington Post story, the Kavanaugh saga has evolved in a familiar refrain.

Seemingly credible accusations get made; Democrats pounce and demand investigations. Republicans grow quiet, until some other allegation emerges that appears to go too far. Then Republicans go into full umbrage mode, pushing Democrats back until the nominee is confirmed (or, in this week’s case, until Democrats change the subject).

“Seemingly credible,” eh? That’s the start of Kane’s problem in describing this pattern. The allegations against Kavanaugh weren’t “seemingly credible” at any stage, and got less credible as scrutiny increased. Christine Blasey Ford offered up an ambiguous claim of an assault from more than thirty years ago at a time she couldn’t name, a place she couldn’t identify, with people present who say they have no recollection of the event at which this assault allegedly took place. Despite Kavanaugh being in public life for years, Blasey Ford had never come forward to make this claim, and hadn’t even told others until decades after it supposedly happened. Blasey Ford offered the names of four people she claimed would verify her story, only to have all four eventually deny that anything of the sort happened — and at least one of whom eventually said she had no confidence in Blasey Ford’s credibility.

How is that “seemingly credible”? In what journalistic world does an uncorroborated and ambiguous claim with so few details that it’s impossible to check become “seemingly credible” enough to print? It was only “seemingly credible” to partisans and media outlets that were and are already primed to dislike Kavanaugh. It was that assignment of credibility to Blasey Ford’s claim that encouraged “some other allegation[s] that appear[] to go too far” to emerge, a dynamic that Kane apparently never considers.

Kane continues by reducing the Times’ travails this week to a “journalistic mishap”:

But the Times story included another allegation of similar behavior that drew most of the attention, until editors posted an update Sunday that included the denial by the alleged victim.

Like Graham a year ago, Republicans jumped on this journalistic mishap to try to destroy the overall content of the book. “I’m distressed by the declining journalistic principals, so much on display,” McConnell said Tuesday.

A “journalistic mishap”? A “journalistic mishap” is using the wrong form of the word “principles” in the above quote. What the New York Times and its reporters did was pass along the rotted fruit of campus gossip from more than thirty years ago without any substantiation at all.  The Times knowingly published an allegation that was easily shot down, while not including the following information that was already in the source material:

  • The new allegation came from a thirdhand anonymous source describing what a secondhand source told the FBI last year
  • The reporters never talked to the secondhand source, Max Stier
  • The reporters never talked to the victim either (although they did know she denies it ever happened)
  • Stier was represented as a good-governance advocate without disclosing the fact that he also was an attorney who represented Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal
  • The article and the book reference Leland Keyser in establishing Blasey Ford’s credibility when Keyser explicitly told them that she doesn’t “have any confidence” in Blasey Ford’s story

That’s a “journalistic mishap” in the same manner that a massive derailment might be described as a “slight delay.” The article is a trainwreck of bad journalism attempting to reinvigorate an egregious character assassination without any evidence at all. Kane’s attempt to turn this yellow-journalism embarrassment into a Republicans Pounce! narrative is a faceplant all its own.

At least some Democrats have the good sense to change the subject. Kane should get a clue.

The post WaPo: Dems retreat on Kavanaugh after Republicans pounce on … “journalistic mishap”? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group facepalm-newspaper-300x164 WaPo: Dems retreat on Kavanaugh after Republicans pounce on … “journalistic mishap”? WaPo The Blog Republicans pounce! New York Times Max Stier liberal media bias Leland Keyser christine blasey ford character assassination   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WaPo: Dems retreat on Kavanaugh after Republicans pounce on … “journalistic mishap”?

Westlake Legal Group facepalm-newspaper WaPo: Dems retreat on Kavanaugh after Republicans pounce on … “journalistic mishap”? WaPo The Blog Republicans pounce! New York Times Max Stier liberal media bias Leland Keyser christine blasey ford character assassination

Hey, we’re always up for another fun edition of Republicans Pounce!Westlake Legal Group 2122 WaPo: Dems retreat on Kavanaugh after Republicans pounce on … “journalistic mishap”? WaPo The Blog Republicans pounce! New York Times Max Stier liberal media bias Leland Keyser christine blasey ford character assassination   , but this example is more jaw-dropping than usual. The Washington Post’s Paul Kane reports on the “whiplash moment” currently befalling Democrats as the New York Times’ rehashed smear job on Brett Kavanaugh comes apart. Kane notes that Republicans have gone on offense right in the lead, while waiting more than a dozen paragraphs to note that Democrats actually pounced first.

Kane laments this “familiar refrain,” which is perhaps a little more familiar than even Kane appreciates:

Since the first allegations emerged a year ago Monday, in a Washington Post story, the Kavanaugh saga has evolved in a familiar refrain.

Seemingly credible accusations get made; Democrats pounce and demand investigations. Republicans grow quiet, until some other allegation emerges that appears to go too far. Then Republicans go into full umbrage mode, pushing Democrats back until the nominee is confirmed (or, in this week’s case, until Democrats change the subject).

“Seemingly credible,” eh? That’s the start of Kane’s problem in describing this pattern. The allegations against Kavanaugh weren’t “seemingly credible” at any stage, and got less credible as scrutiny increased. Christine Blasey Ford offered up an ambiguous claim of an assault from more than thirty years ago at a time she couldn’t name, a place she couldn’t identify, with people present who say they have no recollection of the event at which this assault allegedly took place. Despite Kavanaugh being in public life for years, Blasey Ford had never come forward to make this claim, and hadn’t even told others until decades after it supposedly happened. Blasey Ford offered the names of four people she claimed would verify her story, only to have all four eventually deny that anything of the sort happened — and at least one of whom eventually said she had no confidence in Blasey Ford’s credibility.

How is that “seemingly credible”? In what journalistic world does an uncorroborated and ambiguous claim with so few details that it’s impossible to check become “seemingly credible” enough to print? It was only “seemingly credible” to partisans and media outlets that were and are already primed to dislike Kavanaugh. It was that assignment of credibility to Blasey Ford’s claim that encouraged “some other allegation[s] that appear[] to go too far” to emerge, a dynamic that Kane apparently never considers.

Kane continues by reducing the Times’ travails this week to a “journalistic mishap”:

But the Times story included another allegation of similar behavior that drew most of the attention, until editors posted an update Sunday that included the denial by the alleged victim.

Like Graham a year ago, Republicans jumped on this journalistic mishap to try to destroy the overall content of the book. “I’m distressed by the declining journalistic principals, so much on display,” McConnell said Tuesday.

A “journalistic mishap”? A “journalistic mishap” is using the wrong form of the word “principles” in the above quote. What the New York Times and its reporters did was pass along the rotted fruit of campus gossip from more than thirty years ago without any substantiation at all.  The Times knowingly published an allegation that was easily shot down, while not including the following information that was already in the source material:

  • The new allegation came from a thirdhand anonymous source describing what a secondhand source told the FBI last year
  • The reporters never talked to the secondhand source, Max Stier
  • The reporters never talked to the victim either (although they did know she denies it ever happened)
  • Stier was represented as a good-governance advocate without disclosing the fact that he also was an attorney who represented Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal
  • The article and the book reference Leland Keyser in establishing Blasey Ford’s credibility when Keyser explicitly told them that she doesn’t “have any confidence” in Blasey Ford’s story

That’s a “journalistic mishap” in the same manner that a massive derailment might be described as a “slight delay.” The article is a trainwreck of bad journalism attempting to reinvigorate an egregious character assassination without any evidence at all. Kane’s attempt to turn this yellow-journalism embarrassment into a Republicans Pounce! narrative is a faceplant all its own.

At least some Democrats have the good sense to change the subject. Kane should get a clue.

The post WaPo: Dems retreat on Kavanaugh after Republicans pounce on … “journalistic mishap”? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group facepalm-newspaper-300x164 WaPo: Dems retreat on Kavanaugh after Republicans pounce on … “journalistic mishap”? WaPo The Blog Republicans pounce! New York Times Max Stier liberal media bias Leland Keyser christine blasey ford character assassination   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section

Westlake Legal Group nyt-building-620x348 ‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section Supreme Court Social Media Sexual Assault Allegations SCOTUS Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times New York Media Judicial journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception

The fallout from the New York Times “bombshell” report that wasn’t continues.

Vanity Fair reports that book writers Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly (who are also reporters at the paper) originally went to the news side of the paper to get their story published – but it was rejected:

Why did the Kavanaugh excerpt end up in the Review? People familiar with how things went down told me that Kelly and Pogrebin initially pitched their scoop to the news side, but the top editors ultimately felt that there wasn’t enough juice to warrant a story there, let alone a big page-one treatment (the type many lefties would have been salivating for). Instead, Pogrebin and Kelly were told that they could pitch the Review, which is entirely independent of the News department. I asked for clarification as to what about the story wasn’t News-pages-worthy, but the Times declined to comment, as did Kelly and Pogrebin. (A Times spokesperson did, however, point out that “it’s not unusual for Opinion or Sunday Review pieces to break news.”)

None of this makes any sense. Why would editors on the news side reject this story, but find it suitable for the Sunday Review side?

Elizabeth Vaughn wrote this morning that Pogrebin and Kelly said Monday night their original report did include the information about how the alleged victim had no recollection of the alleged sexual assault – but that the editors somehow unintentionally removed it during the editing process.

Neither of these stories about the differences in both the news and Sunday Review sides exonerate the New York Times from being guilty of journalistic malpractice (at the very least) by way of removing vital information from the piece before it went to press (assuming what Pogrebin and Kelly said was true), information that called the explosive allegation in to question.

But should we believe the authors were victims of an innocent editing mix-up? An interview Pogrebin gave this morning on WMAL makes the writers themselves look guilty, too:

In her WMAL interview this morning, Pogrebin repeatedly refers to the woman as a “victim.” This word choice is instructive about Pogrebin’s thought process. Calling her a victim would be begging the question if the woman claimed this status for herself. She would then be only an alleged victim. But she isn’t even that. She has made no claim to be a victim, yet Pogrebin describes her as one anyway. This is a case of a reporter overriding her reporting with her opinion. Pogrebin then impugns the woman by saying she was so drunk that her memory can’t be trusted. She also says that “everyone” at the party was massively drunk and that their memories are therefore unreliable.

Does she hear herself talking? If this is true, it means Max Stier was also drunk and his memories also can’t be trusted. (Someone should ask Pogrebin whether she was present at this party about which she knows so much.) By what journalistic standard does a reporter discount what is said by the person with the most direct and relevant experience of a matter — the woman in question at the Yale party — in favor of a drunken bystander?

Hmmm.

We know from past experiences that the paper operates from the Republicans / Orange Man Bad perspective, and to hell with standards. But even with that said, this seems especially egregious and intentional no matter how you look at it, and no matter who ultimately is found to be at fault.

(Hat tip: Twitchy)

Related –>> “Airplanes Took Aim”: NY Times Shamefully Goes The Ilhan Omar Route In Describing How 9/11 Happened

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post ‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group nyt-building-300x168 ‘Top Editors’ at NYT Reportedly Rejected Kavanaugh Story, Told Writers They Could Pitch to ‘Sunday Review’ Section Supreme Court Social Media Sexual Assault Allegations SCOTUS Politics NY Times North Carolina New York Times New York Media Judicial journalism Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Courts Brett Kavanaugh Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The New York Times Drops Bombshell No. 2, Raises Even More Questions

Westlake Legal Group new-york-times-builiding-620x413 The New York Times Drops Bombshell No. 2, Raises Even More Questions poop Not Today Internet News New York Times Media Front Page Stories Featured Story Allow Media Exception

New York Times building by wsifrancis, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

It would appear that the New York Times is, indeed, at it again.

Taking social media by storm is a new piece in the NYT‘s Style section all about the greatest taboo of them all: Women who poop at work.

No, dearest friends. I am not kidding.

We may be living in an age where certain pockets of the corporate world are breathlessly adapting to women’s needs — company-subsidized tampons, salary workshops, lactation rooms. But even in the world’s most progressive workplace, it’s not a stretch to think that you might have an empowered female executive leading a meeting at one moment and then sneaking off to another floor to relieve herself, the next.

Poop shame is real — and it disproportionately affects women, who suffer from higher rates of irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease. In other words, the patriarchy has seeped into women’s intestinal tracts. Let’s call it the pootriarchy.

And this would be fine. I would be okay with this story existing. Sure, I don’t want to read about poop, but I understand that it is a topic of interest to some of the Times readers. I don’t have any issue with the story whatsoever.

I have an issue with the graphic.

Look at those stalls. Something is amiss in the corporate bathroom. I first have to ask if the New York Times is aware of what is actually supposed to go on in multi-stall bathrooms.

In the first stall… okay, look. I know the cliches about women going to the bathroom together, but I am struggling to understand the physics of what’s going on in this stall. The woman in the white shoes is facing away from the toilet toward the left side and the woman in orange(?) shoes is facing the toilet from the front, but angled toward the woman in white shoes a bit. Being a heterosexual white male, I can only assume something unwholesome is happening.

The second stall clearly shows the Times‘ commitment to gender-neutral bathrooms, as I am pretty sure that is a man (slacks without heels is a dead giveaway). He is also decidedly not pooping nor are his pants even pulled down. He is also apparently unaware that woman are going to be pooping in the stalls around him, as that is (according to the Bible For Men) something that doesn’t happen.

The fourth stall is occupied by an apparent psychopath with the urge to feel the ghosts of hundreds of poops before her between her toes. This is unacceptable, and we must remove this person from society.

That leaves the third stall. I thought this was the normal person’s stall. This stall was used by someone who recognized the chaos going on around her and fled in terror. But… no. This is perhaps the evilest person of all. She (assuming that this person was a she) has done the unthinkable, and we could be tempted to keep the shoeless pooper among us in society in exchange for barring this one.

“Why?” you ask yourself, not seeing an obvious problem. Because she has left the toilet paper to roll under instead of over. The best-case scenario here is that she did not fix someone else’s mistake. That is just as bad as the person who accidentally scratches their fork across their plate. We know it was an accident and that you didn’t mean to, but we’re still going to have to murder you.

I don’t know what the New York Times thinks goes on in bathrooms, but here in Real America, we don’t tolerate this Grey’s-Anatomy-Meets-Coprophilia behavior in our bathrooms.

The post The New York Times Drops Bombshell No. 2, Raises Even More Questions appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group new-york-times-builiding-300x200 The New York Times Drops Bombshell No. 2, Raises Even More Questions poop Not Today Internet News New York Times Media Front Page Stories Featured Story Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Report: NYT news editors rejected the paper’s Kavanaugh story because it lacked “juice”

Westlake Legal Group k-1 Report: NYT news editors rejected the paper’s Kavanaugh story because it lacked “juice” victim vanity fair The Blog stier pobrebin nyt News New York Times kelly kavanaugh juice joe pompeo editors dao

If you’re looking for evidence that at least some people at the paper are embarrassed by this past weekend’s fiasco, look no further than this Vanity Fair scoop. One of the questions asked by left-wing critics of the Times’s Kavanaugh story is why it was shunted off into the Sunday Review section, which is edited by the paper’s opinion staff, instead of receiving a splashy treatment in the news section befitting the gravity of a new sexual-misconduct claim against a Supreme Court justice. The Times’s deputy opinion page editor, James Dao, offered a “neutral” explanation for that decision: The Sunday Review section is typically the section where the paper publishes “excerpts or adaptations from books.” The new reporting on Kavanaugh comes from a new book. Simple as that.

But that’s not what “people familiar with how things went down” told Vanity Fair. Supposedly the news section *did* have first crack at the new claim about a woman’s hand being placed on Kavanaugh’s dong during a party at Yale when the two were students.

They passed. Why?

Why did the Kavanaugh excerpt end up in the Review? People familiar with how things went down told me that Kelly and Pogrebin initially pitched their scoop to the news side, but the top editors ultimately felt that there wasn’t enough juice to warrant a story there, let alone a big page-one treatment (the type many lefties would have been salivating for). Instead, Pogrebin and Kelly were told that they could pitch the Review, which is entirely independent of the News department. I asked for clarification as to what about the story wasn’t News-pages-worthy, but the Times declined to comment, as did Kelly and Pogrebin. (A Times spokesperson did, however, point out that “it’s not unusual for Opinion or Sunday Review pieces to break news.”)

I got mixed reactions from insiders as to whether the Times made the right call. Some agree that the new material, as presented in the book, wasn’t earth-shattering, especially since the anonymous woman at the center of the alleged penis-thrusting incident claims to not remember it. (In a related story, the Washington Post revealed on Monday that it “did not publish a story” about the incident last year “in part because the intermediaries declined to identify the alleged witness and because the woman who was said to be involved declined to comment.”) Others feel that if a piece of reporting meets the standards of the Review, then it should meet the standards of the News department, and vice versa. Still others find it surprising that newsroom brass didn’t want what Pogrebin and Kelly were offering. Summing up the internal vibe on this overall, one source said, “The most charitable read is that the Times sometimes twists itself in knots with weird internal rules and traditions.”

“There wasn’t enough juice to warrant a story” is an odd thing to say about a scoop of this magnitude, presuming that “juice” means buzzworthiness. But I don’t think that’s what it means in context. “Juice” here means credibility: Of course the Times’s news section would have loved to showcase a new allegation about fratty Brett Kavanaugh finding comedy in sexually assaulting a classmate, but there just wasn’t enough by way of evidence to meet the section’s standards for publication. How could there have been when the supposed victim herself doesn’t remember it happening?

But there was enough for the Sunday Review section, strangely. “I seriously don’t get this new standard where reporters think passing on second- or third-hand hearsay, or campus legend, is suddenly OK,” tweeted NRO’s Kyle Smith this morning. It isn’t okay! — for the news division. It’s fine for opinion, apparently. If you vaguely remember something that may or may not have happened when you were in college and may or may not have involved Brett Kavanaugh and isn’t actually corroborated by the alleged victim, we can’t call that a “fact”…

…but I suppose we could call it an “opinion.” That’s good enough for the paper of record, it seems. Which reminds me of a question I asked yesterday: Has the *print edition* of the Times acknowledged any problems with its Kavanaugh story yet? They added that “editor’s note” to the online version but as I write this at 11 a.m. ET on Tuesday I’m unaware of any print correction or retraction or follow-up story that delves into the controversy about the piece. Print readers presumably remain completely in the dark that there’s any problem with the article.

In fact, the little Q&A feature I linked up top in which Dao answered questions about the story somehow avoids answering the most burning question about it. Why was it never mentioned that the alleged victim of the newly reported assault by Kavanaugh doesn’t remember it happening? Here’s as close as Dao gets to responding:

Some readers have argued that the latest accusation against Mr. Kavanaugh was too weak to appear in The Times. Given that the woman who was said to be involved in the incident refused to be interviewed, and her friends have said she doesn’t remember what happened, why did you include that accusation in the essay?

DAO: The essay included a previously unreported claim that friends pushed Mr. Kavanaugh’s penis into the hand of a female Yale student during a dorm party with drunken classmates. During the authors’ investigation, they learned that a classmate, Max Stier, witnessed the event and later reported it to senators and to the F.B.I. The authors corroborated his story with two government officials, who said they found it credible. Based on that corroboration, we felt mentioning the claim as one part of a broader essay was warranted.

That’s a defense of why Stier’s claim was included in the piece, not an explanation for why the alleged victim’s denial wasn’t included. As we now know from the authors of the piece, the denial *was* included originally. The paper’s editors took it out. Why? Radio silence from Dao.

I strongly recommend reading that entire Q&A, by the way, just to see the bias on display *even while the paper is trying to clean up its earlier bias.* Of the five questions posed there about the Kavanaugh piece, only one — the one I just quoted — has to do with the paper being unfair to Kavanaugh by running unsubstantiated allegations of sexual misconduct. Of the other four, three are basically left-wing complaints that the paper should have done more to promote the smear and the fourth has to do with the weird phrasing of a tweet the paper sent while promoting it.

Just to put a cherry on top here, it turns out that the authors of the book that inspired the Times story on Kavanaugh never actually spoke to Stier himself about the bombshell allegation. They’ve confirmed — I think? — that Stier *did* make this accusation last year, but they weren’t able to grill him about the details or personally test his credibility.

That was from an interview last night. When the authors were interviewed again this morning on CNN, however, they were cagier about whether they’d spoken to Stier — as if not wanting to further undermine their reporting by forthrightly admitting that they haven’t spoken to the key witness for their new bombshell allegation against Kavanaugh. (Whom, by the way, they also fail to note was a Clinton defense lawyer with a possible partisan motive in accusing Kavanaugh.) How many more layers of shadiness can be piled onto this incident?

The post Report: NYT news editors rejected the paper’s Kavanaugh story because it lacked “juice” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group k-1-300x153 Report: NYT news editors rejected the paper’s Kavanaugh story because it lacked “juice” victim vanity fair The Blog stier pobrebin nyt News New York Times kelly kavanaugh juice joe pompeo editors dao   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

NYT reporters: We included exculpatory info on Kavanaugh — but editors removed it

Westlake Legal Group odonnell-pogrebin-kelly NYT reporters: We included exculpatory info on Kavanaugh — but editors removed it The Blog Robin Pogrebin New York Times Max Stier Leland Keyser Kate Kelly christine blasey ford character assassination Brett Kavanaugh

Who made the decision to excise the teensy little detail from the “new” reporting at the New York Times on Brett Kavanaugh that called into question the “new” allegation made? Don’t blame us, the book’s authors and NYT reporters told Lawrence O’Donnell last night on MSNBC. Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly claim that their submission of the “adaptation” from their book included the fact that the supposed victim of Kavanaugh at a second party doesn’t have any recollection of the incident. The editors removed it, they tell a credulous O’Donnell, because of sensitivity to using the names of victims of sexual assault.

Well, that’s one explanation (via Leah Barkoukis):

Normally, however, editors work with contributors on their submissions. The process usually requires a last look by contributors to the edited material for any last-minute issues created by the editing. Why did the two reporters sign off on the submission rather than insist that the key sentence be restored to provide the proper context, perhaps with a redaction in place of the woman’s name? O’Donnell doesn’t ask, and the two never volunteer an answer.

Mollie Hemingway isn’t buying it for another reason. First, as she initially noted on Twitter, the two sat around for at least a full day without speaking up about the missing sentence and context, even when it started getting noticed. More importantly, though, Hemingway discovered that the two left out the same information in an NPR interview that was taped late last week before the NYT “adaptation” had been published:

Not only that, but the two also discuss with NPR how Leland Keyser helps to establish Christine Blasey Ford’s credibility without ever once mentioning that Keyser told them explicitly that she doesn’t find Blasey Ford credible. That’s before they get to Stier’s story, which was a secondhand bit of gossip about something so inconsequential that the alleged victim doesn’t recall it at all. The authors also claim that they “haven’t found motivations for them to lie,” even though Blasey Ford’s attorney admitted last week that part of their motivation in coming forward was to defend Roe v Wade and to “put an asterisk” next to Kavanaugh’s name in perpetuity.

This explanation is basically nonsense, in other words. Kelly and Pogrebin authored a hit piece in the NYT that ignored important context and contradictory information because they’ve been ignoring both all along. The NYT column was part and parcel of a dishonest smear campaign that has been in motion since the summer of 2018 in an attempt to intimidate Roe-critical jurists. If the editors did remove the exculpatory sentence, it was only in service to the same mission that the authors intended all along.

It is interesting, however, to see Pogrebin and Kelly throw their editors at the NYT under the proverbial bus. Will the editors return the favor? The plot is definitely thickening, as Chuck Ross says.

The post NYT reporters: We included exculpatory info on Kavanaugh — but editors removed it appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group odonnell-pogrebin-kelly-300x162 NYT reporters: We included exculpatory info on Kavanaugh — but editors removed it The Blog Robin Pogrebin New York Times Max Stier Leland Keyser Kate Kelly christine blasey ford character assassination Brett Kavanaugh   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com