Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

NYT Reporters Say Editors Removed Info That Supposed Kavanaugh Victim Didn’t Recall Incident

NYT Reporters Say Editors Removed Info That Supposed Kavanaugh Victim Didn’t Recall Incident

When the NY Times ran its correction adding the information, it didn’t disclose that the Editors had removed the disclosure, allowing the authors to take the heat.

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1173807456545148928

On Monday, Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist noted that The New York Times quietly added an important correction to its hit piece on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The publication admitted it did not mention “that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say she does not recall the incident.”

Authors Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly told MSNBC that they added the woman’s name and information to their piece.

They claim the editors took out the information.

From Fox News:

“In your draft of the article, did it include those words that have since been added to the article?” MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell asked.

“It did,” both Pogrebin and Kelly responded.

“So somewhere in the editing process, those words were trimmed,” O’Donnell said in clarification.

Pogrebin then explained that The Times doesn’t usually include names of victims and that she believed that when the editors removed the name, the crucial information that she didn’t remember was also removed.

“So I think it was just sort of an editing, you know, done in the haste in the editing process,” Pogrebin added.

“Were you involved in the decision to amend this and do the correction- the addition online to the piece?” O’Donnell followed.

“We discussed it,” Pogrebin said. “We felt like there was so much heat, there’s so much- everyone has been has been seizing on various aspects of this that we certainly didn’t want it to be an issue anymore and we certainly never intended to mislead in any way. We wanted to give as full of a story as possible.”

Kelly admitted she was “not sure” when O’Donnell asked them if they thought the editors should have mentioned the fact that the authors included the information in the correction note:

“But I think the desire you see was to get the information out there to the readers, not to focus too much on the process,” she added. “Because obviously there had been an error of judgment that was being addressed, and just to move on to give people the information they needed, but also to remind people that this is an adaptation of a much longer work that’s forthcoming.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

JackinSilverSpring | September 17, 2019 at 9:05 am

The dog ate my homework excuse.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | September 17, 2019 at 9:50 am

    More like:

    “Satan took over and took over the entire New York Times…after the New York Times invited Satan in and fully colluded with Satan…” – NYT

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to JackinSilverSpring. | September 17, 2019 at 3:16 pm

    I just got around to this article and was about to make that very comment. I’m getting old and slow.

    What’s missing here is application of Finagle’s Law: “The most important leg on a three-legged stool is the one that isn’t there.”

    In this instance, the ‘missing leg’ is that no one is underlining the obvious fact that a national newspaper does not publish a ‘hit piece’ on a Supreme Court Justice which accuses him of ‘flag waving’ without being goddamn sure said national newspaper can back it up. Thus, “missed … ( in the sacred sausage-making’editorial process’ ) … the insignificant fact that the ‘flag wavee’ saw neither the flag nor the wave ” is a lie of
    such simple demonstration that one hardly has energy to point it out.

    An alternative, but perhaps equally plausible, explanation is that these elitists fools, in their addled crusade against Trump, have simply ingested so much Koolaid that they don’t even know what business they are in anymore.

“Error of judgement” my rear end!

One interesting side note, Mollie Hemmingway in an interview on Fox noted these same reporters had an hour long interview with NPR and not once in the interview did they mention the ‘supposed victim’ denied the event.

This should serve to remind us that the Left is not a Truth-based movement, it is Narrative based. The story served its intended purpose, to reinforce the idea that Trump and everyone on the Right are against women.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Cogsys. | September 17, 2019 at 9:52 am

    “Narrative based” means bold-faced Lies?

    Got ya!

    casualobserver in reply to Cogsys. | September 17, 2019 at 10:07 am

    My view is different – many on the left who are out to promote their agenda will throw others under the bus as needed to suit the goals (the narrative). In the previous NPR interview, the two writers likely thought they were on mission. By the NBC interview, they realized the mission was in jeopardy, and they perhaps also didn’t want any of the stink on themselves. So, under the bus someone goes!

    bernie49 in reply to Cogsys. | September 17, 2019 at 1:01 pm

    Does anyone have a link to the NPR interview?

    Milhouse in reply to Cogsys. | September 17, 2019 at 3:21 pm

    We don’t know what they mentioned in the interview. All we know is what made it into the broadcast version.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | September 18, 2019 at 1:08 am

      If these hacks had mentioned that the “victim” couldn’t recall any event like this and that vital bit of information ended up on the digital cutting room floor, that means NPR also was in on the lie.

      Exhibit 879,902,346 that we need to cut its funding entirely.

      It would be easy enough to find out if the two NYT smear merchants or NPR are the bad actors, should anyone be interested in doing the hard work of picking up the phone and doing some journalisming. Figure the odds.

All The News That’s Fit To Print – er – Almost.

    RandomCrank in reply to DanJ1. | September 17, 2019 at 12:12 pm

    All The News That’s Fit To Make Up

    MattMusson in reply to DanJ1. | September 17, 2019 at 1:00 pm

    When I was young, I made fun of people who believed what they read in PRAVDA. Now, I make fun of people who believe what they read in the NYT.

    Someone throw “Responsible Journalism” onto the trash heap of Oxymorons.

They’re all liars, every one. Nothing, not one thing any of the progs say should be believed.

This isn’t surprising to me in the least. We know from the recenlty leaked NYT internal meeting transcript that they are grossly biased and is actively involved in creating anti-conservative narratives in the hopes of shaping the political process.

These progs that keep trying to gin up chaos, have they seriously never thought through what might become of them if they succeed? For such supposedly smart people, they sure seem ignorant of history.

The story should have died with the fact the supposed victim couldn’t remember the event taking place.

These fucks weren’t looking for the truth. They were looking for any lie that would support their position that this coming fall is a very dangerous one for liberal cases coming to SCOTUS.

    OnTheLeftCoast in reply to mailman. | September 17, 2019 at 11:54 am

    What do you mean? If she doesn’t remember, that proves she was there and Kavanagh drugged her. After all, he was accused of that! (Okay, okay, /sarc.)

    I used to work in a setting frequented by well educated leftist females and overheard stuff like that frequently. The NYT is deliberately whipping up that kind of rage.

    Historian Michael Vlahos recently said that by 2020, the losing side will not accept the legitimacy of the election and thinks that hot civil war is a real possibility.

    That was the goal of the Leftist “resistance” from the get-go. Victory or tear the whole thing down.

    With that in mind, this was an interesting story:

    “The majority of violent crime, including gun violence, in the United States is linked to gangs,” Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican who sponsored the amendment, said Wednesday. “My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database if there was probable cause to include that individual in the database.

    “Democrats objected with reasons that sounded very familiar to Republicans.

    “GOP lawmakers have staunchly opposed “No Fly, No Buy” proposals Democrats have tried to pass in the House in recent years because the lists flag the wrong people.

    Like the no-fly lists, which have erroneously flagged many innocent individuals as terrorists (including the late Sen. Ted Kennedy), the gang databases are often inaccurate, Democrats said.”

    I’m sure the fact that many “activists” and “community organizers,” not to mention politicians have ties to the local gangs has nothing to do with it.

    I’m wondering whether gangs are plan B for the Left if Antifa can’t get the job done, so the Dems (or the people who write their talking points) don’t want the gangs disarmed.

      ““My amendment is quite simple. It would allow the issuance of a red flag order against anyone whose name appears in a gang database…”

      Hell, no. The Leftists would immediately attempt to claim NRA members, shooting club members, Rotary club members, Knights of Columbus, et al…

These are the same editors who assign reporters who passionately support some political advocacy to cover events relating to that advocacy. Because that, apparently, is their idea of “quality journalism.”

Does anyone one else notice the subtle misuse of English here: “that the student doesn’t recall anything about the incident.” Shouldn’t that read “that the student doesn’t recalll any such incident ever happening?” While this might look like nit picking, the implication of the first is that the student’s memory failed to recall the incident. The clear meaning of the second is that she, and presumably others, did have that experience – I.e., the alleged incident didn’t take place.

The “correction” is another example of the non-apology apology frequently used by the left. They want us to be arguing about who might recall the incident. They don’t want to admit that it’s a fabrication of the authors and the former Clinton lawyer.

    TX-rifraph in reply to swg. | September 17, 2019 at 10:33 am

    “that the student doesn’t recall anything about the incident.”

    Excellent point. If I respond with a defense rather than an attack the premise, then I am accepting the premise that an incident actually occurred and we get to discuss memories in stressful situations, etc. They are very skilled at deception as it is a way of life for them at the NYT (Not Your Truth). We need to know those deceptive skills so we see things like you have pointed out. Thank you.

      Tom Servo in reply to TX-rifraph. | September 17, 2019 at 10:36 am

      another deliberate error in their “reporting” and one which Adam Schiff repeated yesterday; they keep misusing the word “corroboration” to imply that others have backed up the story.

      In Legal terms, “Corroboration” means that you have found some other witness who can back up the details of a story independently. Finding someone who can say “oh yeah I remember back then Joe told me that lie too!!!” is NOT “corroboration”!!!!

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Tom Servo. | September 17, 2019 at 2:35 pm

        Thanks.

        The Dems will just be more careful to coordinate their colluding to falsely corroborate…..if we tell them though…

They go on the notorious MSNBC to clarify.

Sorry ladies, the MSM have destroyed their credibility. I have no idea whether to believe you or not. I note the NYT did not explain their decision to omit the information, implicitly blaming the authors. So who to believe.

“Take out the name of victim”

The “victim” who said she wasn’t a victim? I get we have a standard – or a consistent policy but Republicans are probably excluded nowadays – of not naming the victims of sexual assault.

But do we now also have a standard of not naming people who others make up a story about them being a victim of a crime but the so-called victim denies?

Balsa wood is sturdier than this excuse.

Why are the editors not named in any of this reporting?

Scott Adams says it’s very unlikely. At that level the editors are really good, and so are the writers.

“Max Stier personally witnessed Brett Kavanaugh and his drunken frat buddies gang raping women in Yale dorms. None of the victims had any memory of this. All declined to be interviewed. But Julie Swetnick, who also attended these parties, swears she saw Brett Kavanaugh put date rape drugs into the punch, which could explain their lack of memories. We at the NYT could not corroborate Stier’s and Swetnick’s allegations, but our guts tell us it has the ring of truth. And we are obligated to give our readers as much information as possible.”

All the news that’s fit to print.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Arminius. | September 17, 2019 at 2:37 pm

    Yeah, the NYT editors and writer think just because they widely slip date rape drugs in and rape, that everyone does it.

    SNARK!

    See how that self-projection of theirs works…….

This the computer age. No one, since the Unibomber was arrested, uses a typewriter anymore. These “reporters” used a computer. And being good writers [not the same as accurate] they saved a copy of the finished work, which was sent to the Times. That file will have a date/time stamp on it. So, if they really included the fact that the alleged victim did not remember any such incident occurring, in the original, all they have to do is produce that original file data. But, that is not likely to happen.

What is much more likely is that the authors produced the op-ed, excluding the information later added by the Times after publication, and submitted it to the editors. The editors decided to run with it, either without question or ignoring fact checking responsibilities, because it fit into their agenda. When they got caught in a critical omission, they threw the writers under the bus. In other words, the authors and the paper were happy to participate in an inaccurate account, until its inaccuracy was revealed. Now, everyone involced is pointing fingers of blame at the others.

I have demurred from commenting on the latest Brent Kavanaugh smear, but one thing should be discussed. That is the fact that after the original series of smears, the FBI seemingly refused to interview “victims” and witnesses in subsequent cases where claims were made.

Though corrupt, the Bureau is not stupid. The Blasey-Ford accusations were proven to be totally without factual basis. And, that presentation involved a number of highly important people, including former Bureau personnel. Given the total lack of factual credibility involved, the Bureau does not want to look too closely into any claims of misconduct against Kavanaugh, for fear that a lot of people, who know where the bodies are buried, will be dragged into the light. The lack of investigation, in these cases, is designed to protect people other than Kavanaugh.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Mac45. | September 17, 2019 at 2:38 pm

    Hear hear!

    BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | September 17, 2019 at 3:42 pm

    Well in this case it’s obvious why the FBI didn’t investigate it; there was nothing to investigate. There was no concrete allegation of any crime, certainly not by Kavanaugh. Some unnamed people allegedly put Kavanaugh’s penis into someone else’s hand. There’s no indication that the someone else objected, or that the first people had any reason to suppose she would object, let alone that Kavanaugh’s role was anything more than being the drunken body attached to said penis.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | September 18, 2019 at 12:59 am

      Up until five minutes ago, figuratively speaking, Deborah Ramirez was saying that she couldn’t say for sure who had exposed himself to her. She couldn’t really be sure anybody had done so since somebody thought it was funny to run around with a dildo (I never understood frat boy humor even when I was in college). She admitted she had been drinking heavily and had gaps in her memory.

      Now all of sudden she remembers with Waterford crystal clarity it was Kavanaugh? Sorry, if you’ve been drinking and you don’t even remember the next day everything that happened at a party your memory of events isn’t going to get better over the next three and a half decades. Or, err, that’s what I’ve heard.

      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-deborah-ramirez-corroboration-that-wasnt

      Does anybody actually expect the FBI to take this seriously?

      The Stier allegation is so ridiculous it isn’t even worth discussing. So what is it doing in an article let alone a book? That’s a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.

So they accidently excluded the single most important piece of information the story … Someone us asking we pull their finger

Gowdy made a great point Monday night, why was none of this unearthed when he was nominated for the DC Circuit over a decade ago. The FBI already had done their investigation for that nomination and would only look at info from the mid 2000’s moving forward.

What a load. If the story included the information that not even the supposed victim knew anything about these “facts” then it’s not a story at all. There’s no “there” there. So why did they even submit it?

Their “gut feelings” (translation—wishful thinking) are of no interest, unless the Times is an official purveyor of all the news our guts feel.

The Babylon Bee for the win:

“NEW YORK, NY—Many people criticized the New York Times’ recent piece bringing to light new and recycled Brett Kavanaugh allegations, especially after the website issued a disclaimer admitting basically nobody remembered the alleged incident.

“But the Times is standing by its story, going so far as to reveal its source: a reputable Nigerian prince who emailed the investigative reporters offering information in exchange for funds to be wired via MoneyGram.”

    https://babylonbee.com/news/hypocrisy-right-wingers-who-love-it-when-the-babylon-bee-makes-stuff-up-suddenly-get-mad-when-the-nyt-does-it

    Now they’re just rubbing it in.

    “Hypocrisy: Right-Wingers Who Love It When The Babylon Bee Makes Stuff Up Suddenly Get Mad When The NYT Does It

    U.S.—Many on the right have reacted with outrage to The New York Times on its story about Brett Kavanaugh where it basically made up a new charge against him. This is being looked at as hypocrisy, though, as many of those same people enjoy it when Christian satire site The Babylon Bee makes things up…”

    Seriously, the Bablyon Bee has replaced the NYT as America’s paper of record. But then, how hard could that have been considering the NYT has long beclowned itself by become a cheap gossip rag producing garbage that would make the National Enquirer puke.

They didn’t want the fact that the alleged victim has no memory of this happening to be a distraction from their hit piece.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend