Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Between an offensive tweet and a significant revision, The New York Times' handling of a new sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh attracted almost as much attention as the accusation itself.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

FTA:

Placement of the accusation in the midst of an opinion-section piece struck many in the journalism community as odd.

"How is this not a front-page story?" wrote Tom Jones of the journalism think tank the Poynter Institute.

Todd Gitlin, a Columbia University journalism professor, said "There have been a number of decisions on this that strike me as dubious."

The New York Post ran an editorial headlined "The latest Times hit on Brett Kavanaugh is a clear miss."

The Times also apologized for an offensive tweet sent out by their Opinion Section advertising its initial story. The tweet said: "Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun. But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn't belong at Yale University in the first place."

The Times deleted the tweet and said it was "clearly inappropriate and offensive" and was looking into how it was sent.

I am sure that Dean Baquet wished that his Opinion Section had stayed on its Pivot to Racism.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 04:37 PM | Reply

I am sure that Dean Baquet wished that his Opinion Section had stayed on its Pivot to Racism.

#1 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Ya think?

When asked why it didn't get front page treatment in their news section the answer was, "it lacked juice".

Funny choice of words, as if it was too tame of a story to print as news. Fact is, "juice" is probably a euphemism for lacking in credibility and verifiable sourcing.

NYT has been getting blasted by this even from their own side.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 04:44 PM | Reply

Even CNN is piling on, this is getting incredibly ugly for the NY Times:

The New York Times was reeling on Monday after its Opinion section fumbled a high-profile story about an allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, drawing widespread criticism and condemnation of the newspaper.

It was the latest in a series of high-profile blunders that has caused embarrassment to James Bennet since he was appointed in 2016 as the editor overseeing The Times' Opinion section. Bennet's tenure has been marked with several mishaps that have generated controversy, drawn criticism, and spurred at least one lawsuit.

But while the Opinion section has unquestionably produced strong work in the years since Bennet took over, it has also been culpable for some of the biggest journalistic black eyes at The Times during that period.

The latter happened again over the weekend when The Times' Sunday Review published the botched Kavanaugh story and an offensive tweet that advertised the story. By Sunday night, The Times had not only apologized for the "offensive" tweet, but also appended to the essay an editor's note addressing the glaring omission in its original story.

The weekend flub was one in a series of botched stories:

In 2017, the Opinion section published an editorial that drew a link between an advertisement from Sarah Palin's political action committee and a 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona, in which six people were killed and then-Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was severely wounded with no evidence that the shooter saw the advertisement, much less that he was motivated by it. The Times issued a correction and withdrew the story.

In April of this year, the Opinion section of The Times' international edition published an anti-Semitic cartoon. The Opinion section issued an apology and The Times' publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, said the newspaper was "taking disciplinary" measures regarding the editor involved.

And most recently, The Times faced a barrage of criticism and mockery over the actions of columnist Bret Stephens, who after being jokingly referred to as a "bedbug" on Twitter by a George Washington University professor wrote an op-ed likening being referred to as a bedbug to the dehumanizing language Jewish people faced under Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich.

Sprinkled in between have been other mishaps, including a Twitter poll related to the Kavanaugh hearings. The poll asked whether readers found the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, to be "credible." The Times later deleted it, saying it was "insensitive in light of the gravity of the hearing."

CNN: New York Times' botched Kavanaugh story the latest in series of blunders from Opinion section

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 04:58 PM | Reply

It's a feeding frenzy on NYT

#5 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2019-09-17 05:08 PM | Reply

This pretty much sums it up.

#6 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 05:12 PM | Reply

CNN calls NY Times "fake news".

Film at 11.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-17 05:13 PM | Reply

It's funny how all of the people who were chiding and lecturing me as being a partisan hack for calling BS on this are nowhere to be found.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 05:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#8

You're a partisan hack.

Hope you feel better.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-17 05:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"You're a partisan hack.
Hope you feel better.

#9 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK "

I'll bet the irony of this post flew right over your head.

#11 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 05:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Your timing was perfect, Clown.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 06:00 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

I'll bet the irony of this post flew right over your head.
#11 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

I'll bet the humor of my post flew right over your horns.

You love to run to Jeff's defense a lot. You must not believe he's able to respond for himself. You have a low option of Jeff.

How unfortunate. Before you came along he was quite capable of responding for himself and much more astute at picking up on my jokes.

But, you gotta shht on everything.

It's what goats do.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-17 06:01 PM | Reply

Your timing was perfect, Clown.
#12 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Thanks buddy.

Glad you have a sense of humor.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-17 06:02 PM | Reply

Since mainstream outlets are piling on, I'll throw in some NRO:

Though the woman at the center of the story wants no part of it, Kelly and Pogrebin published her name anyway (in their book, albeit not in the Times). "You're kind of directing attention at a victim and she's gonna be besieged," Pogrebin said on the radio show, in explaining why the Times piece left the name out. "Even if people can ultimately find her name, it's not necessarily important to make it easier for them to do so." Oh, so publishing her name in a book does not constitute making it too easy for people to find this private citizen? It's a separate but serious scandal. This woman has been made a public figure in a national story without her consent. Even if she were the victim of sexual misconduct, the Times would ordinarily take steps to protect her identity. Yet she has made no claim along these lines, and Pogrebin and Kelly outed her anyway. Is there no respect for a woman's privacy? Is every woman in America to think of herself as potential collateral damage should she ever cross paths with any Republican whom Times reporters later tried to take down?I

n 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? If both the woman and Stier were drunk, why is his memory more credible than hers? If something like this had actually happened to her, wouldn't she be more likely than anyone else to remember it? Maybe Stier is remembering a different party. Maybe he's remembering a different guy. Maybe he made it up.


www.nationalreview.com

And there is this piece by David French:

www.nationalreview.com

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 06:04 PM | Reply

"I'll bet the humor of my post flew right over your horns.
POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK "

Yeah, Joe already pulled that one a day. Odd how something suddenly becomes a joke when a person is called out on it.

#16 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 06:05 PM | Reply

Glad you have a sense of humor.

#14 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Some days, I feel it's the only thing that keeps me sane.

Keyboard warriors are real people at the end of the day.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-17 06:06 PM | Reply

Odd how something suddenly becomes a joke when a person is called out on it.
#16 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Dude. Get over yourself.

Clearly my response to Jeff was a joke.

He got it.

That's all that matters to me.

Sad how you can't accept what other people's tell you. Must suck to live life believing everyone is lying to you all the time.

Who knows. Perhaps you lie so often you simply assume everyone else does too.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-17 06:23 PM | Reply

"He got it
That's all that matters to me.
POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK"

Apparently not or you would not have written post 18. LOL

#19 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 06:27 PM | Reply

" Perhaps you lie so often you simply assume everyone else does too.

#18 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-09-17 06:23 PM "

Funny how you and your ilk squawk that line so much, but you never call me out on any specifice post where I have allegedly lied. It is always some none-specific, "you're a liar" crap.

Call me out when you see a lie of mine in a post. That pulls a lot more weight than a fuzzy claim in the future

#20 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 06:30 PM | Reply

I thought Clown's #9 was hilarious.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 06:34 PM | Reply

I thought Clown's #9 was hilarious.
#21 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Excellent.

At least people with a sense of humor got it.

:)

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-17 06:44 PM | Reply

Funny how you and your ilk squawk that line so much,

If multiple posters are telling you the same thing, maybe you should listen to them.

Or not...

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-17 06:46 PM | Reply

Call me out when you see a lie of mine in a post.
#20 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Been there, done that.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-17 06:47 PM | Reply

"Been there, done that.
#24 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK "

LOL

I *do* get this joke!

#25 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-17 06:48 PM | Reply

Been there, done that.
POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-09-17 06:47 PM | REPLY

You utilize that liesol sprays with clockwork regularity. It's great to see btw.

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-17 06:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

When was the last time, outside of a gender thread, that Laura had a substantive post about the thread itself?

Asking for a friend.

#27 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 10:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

When was the last time, outside of a gender thread, that Laura had a substantive post about the thread itself?

Asking for a friend.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-17 10:53 PM | Reply

Asking for "LCL" I take it??

#28 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-09-17 11:08 PM | Reply

When was the last time, outside of a gender thread, that Laura had a substantive post about the thread itself?

Asking for a friend.

Posted by Rightocenter

If that upsets you, take an Ambien and check out this poster who rarely comments on threat topic and saves all the nitpicking arguments for only individuals from one side of the aisle:

drudge.com

I suggest you give that one a HUGE tongue lashing since posters who don't post substantive posts most of the time upsets you so much!

#29 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-18 02:43 AM | Reply

When was the last time, outside of a gender thread, that Laura had a substantive post about the thread itself?

Asking for a friend.

Posted by Rightocenter

If that upsets you, take an Ambien and check out this poster who rarely comments on thread topics and saves all the nitpicking arguments for only individuals from one side of the aisle:

drudge.com

I suggest you give that one a HUGE tongue lashing since posters who don't post substantive posts most of the time upsets you so much!

#30 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-18 02:52 AM | Reply

More piling on. This time in WaPo:

Opinions | The New York Times's travesty of journalistic ethics

www.msn.com

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 10:03 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I think it comes up at msn in order to bypass a paywall.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 10:04 AM | Reply

Kavanaugh better keep a very low profile in the coming couple of years. Especially if the Dems take over the Senate. He definitely has a big 'guilty' sign stamped on his forehead.

#33 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-09-18 02:50 PM | Reply

He definitely has a big 'guilty' sign stamped on his forehead.

#33 | POSTED BY MODER8

Um, no.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 03:07 PM | Reply

Um, no.

#34 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Um yeah. Sure.

Mitch McConnell "plowed right through" and obtained Kavanaugh's confirmation to the court regardless of and in spite of the facts. Just as he said he would.

Republicans had made up their minds on Kavanaugh even before the evidence was made available. And by an apparent order of the President the FBI did a Fake investigation to further protect the Fake President and his Fake Men.

And in spite of the facts or the truth innocent or guilty they will support their man to the bitter end. They (and you) have no choice now. Your party's very existence depends on alk of you all continuing to support the Big Lies and the Big Liar-in-Chief.

Good luck with that. You are almost out of time.

Come on 2020!

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-09-18 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donner,

Your historical revisionism is astounding.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 04:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#30

He is sooooo far in your head, why don't you start your own thread begging RCade to reban him, it worked out so well for OldWhineySnowflake.

Pathetic.

#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-18 09:00 PM | Reply

#28

No, he can ask his own questions, I was more pointing out that you are an idiot, regardless of gender preference.

#38 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-09-18 09:01 PM | Reply

Your historical revisionism is astounding.
#36 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Sorry, Jeff.

Donner's #35 is spot on.

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-18 09:04 PM | Reply

No it isn't, Clown. It's not even close.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 09:07 PM | Reply

Jeff.

It's literally what happened, if you're willing to read between the lines.

#41 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-09-18 11:42 PM | Reply

Clown,

I watched it unfold from the beginning and have read extensively about it (from all sides).

It's not even close to what happened, "literally" or otherwise.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-18 11:48 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort