The press in the United States suffers from a crisis of credibility.
It is almost entirely self-inflicted.
The New York Times this weekend published a supposed “bombshell” article alleging Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh twice exposed himself to female classmates when he was a student at Yale. The Times article, drawn from an excerpt of a book authored by two Times reporters, is supremely misleading. It not only downplays serious holes in the allegations against Kavanaugh — relying heavily on vague language to suggest the judge is indeed guilty of sexual misconduct — but the article, as it appeared originally in print and online, also omitted exculpatory details found only in the forthcoming reporters’ book on last year’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings.
It is just an oversight, I am sure, that the first version of the article forgot to mention that one of the alleged victims of Kavanaugh’s alleged depredations told her friends she has no memory of what is even being alleged, according to the Times’ own reporting.
The op-ed’s first accusation comes from former Kavanaugh classmate Deborah Ramirez, whose story is still as flimsy and unbelievable as when it was first told by the New Yorker. The Times article claims, “At least seven people, including Ms. Ramirez’s mother, heard about the Yale incident long before Mr. Kavanaugh was a federal judge.” However, the book from which the article is drawn reports that Ramirez’s mother remembers only that her daughter said: “something happened at Yale.” That’s it.
There is more.
The excerpt states also that, “Two F.B.I. agents interviewed Ms. Ramirez, telling her that they found her ‘credible.’” The wording here is intentionally ambiguous. Did the agents use the word “credible” in a conversation with the Times reporters? Or are the reporters merely relaying what Ramirez claims she was told by FBI agents? It is obvious the reader is meant to assume the former. Otherwise, what is the point of including this detail?
The second allegation against Kavanaugh is even more absurd. For starters, the Times was not told about the additional incident by the alleged victim herself. Rather, the story comes from Democratic consultant Max Stier, who claims to have witnessed Kavanaugh exposing himself to a second female colleague. Stier, who the Times reporters characterize in their book as the head of a nonprofit organization in Washington, D.C., and a “respected thought leader,” declined to “discuss the episode publicly,” the op-ed notes.
Just so we are all on the same page: The first allegation comes from a woman who said previously she was not “confident” it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself until after she “assessed” her memories 30-plus years later and talked it over with her attorney. This same woman, by the way, contacted former Yale classmates about the incident prior to going public, the Times itself reported last year. The second allegation comes from a Democratic consultant who claims he once saw something but won’t go public with his story.
Amazingly enough, it goes from bad to worse for the Times. Late Sunday evening, the paper added an editor’s note to the book excerpt it published earlier. It reads [emphasis added]:
The supposed victim from Stier’s story does not even recall the alleged incident, according to the Times’ reporting, and it did not occur to the paper’s editors to include that detail in the original version of the article? That is inexcusable.
If you suspect that this was merely a regrettable oversight, I am here to disabuse you of that notion. The Times excluded this exact same information from its additional reporting on the matter. In a follow-up report, titled “Calls for Kavanaugh’s Impeachment Come Amid New Misconduct Allegations,” that appeared Sunday evening on the paper’s website, the Times again omitted the same exculpatory details. The online report has since been amended to note Stier’s alleged victim reportedly has no memory of the supposed incident. There is no editor’s note drawing attention to the report’s updated language. Also, the print edition of the story was not amended prior to Monday delivery. The Sept. 16 print edition makes no mention whatsoever of the alleged victim’s reported failure to recall Stier’s version of events.
A New York Times spokesperson did not respond the Washington Examiner’s request for comment.
There is no charitable interpretation for what happened this weekend. These reports represent a conscious attempt to deceive the public. Even if the omissions were the product of an honest editorial mistake, the authors of the articles would have caught them. These articles were deceptive because they were designed to be deceptive.
Newsrooms talk a big game these days about the pressure they are under operating in a world where the president of the United States is openly hostile to the press. Journalists and commentators complain a lot about how difficult it is to reach audiences when their credibility is challenged daily by the White House. But I assure you, nothing this president does or says comes close to matching the wounds the press inflicts on itself with its slipshod, ham-fisted brand of politically-skewed reporting.
No one forced the Times to misreport the allegations against Kavanaugh. No one forced the Times to omit crucial context. The paper did that all on its own.
In February 2017, shortly after the inauguration of President Trump, the Times unveiled an ad campaign that declared, “The truth is more important now than ever.”
If only the New York Times believed that.
