Current Events > Apparently the NYT Kavanaugh story just imploded. Thanks, NYT.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-yale.html

NY Times adds a tiny little correction at the bottom:

Editors Note: Sept. 15, 2019
An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

-Golfclap-

Nice work, NYT
---

Doesn't matter, the seed has been planted.
---

Funny how often these journalism "mistakes" keep happening.

Is it just bad education or what?

pogo_rabid posted...

Doesn't matter, the seed has been planted.

Not all seeds become trees

FrozenXylophone posted...

pogo_rabid posted...

Doesn't matter, the seed has been planted.

Not all seeds become trees

The circlejerks they grow in sure do act like greenhouses.
---

This is why Trump is right when he complains about how Kavanaugh should be able to sue for libel. Being a public figure shouldn't make it legal to maliciously and purposefully smear you for years with zero evidence whatsoever.

The retraction never reaches as far as the accusation.
---

Tryhaptaward posted...

Funny how often these journalism "mistakes" keep happening.

Is it just bad education or what?

it's activists masquerading as journalists.
---

Tryhaptaward posted...

Funny how often these journalism "mistakes" keep happening.

Is it just bad education or what?

It's a problem first really highlighted with the Rolling Stone "UVa Rape on Campus" debacle. You really need to verify your story with a firsthand account that isn't the one making the claim before you publish.

All NYT had to do was contact the woman the book claims was assaulted. That's literally all they had to do.
---

Get fucked NYT
---

Articles in general are getting worse than from like 10-15 years ago, grammar and spelling mistakes and all that crap.

Seriously though, how terrible do you have to be at journalism that you actually publish a story that the alleged victim denies when asked?

Like, they didn't even ask the alleged victim? That shouldn't even be Journalism 101. That's just basic starting information you need.
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

This is why Trump is right when he complains about how Kavanaugh should be able to sue for libel. Being a public figure shouldn't make it legal to maliciously and purposefully smear you for years with zero evidence whatsoever.

The retraction never reaches as far as the accusation.

"But they can't be sued for libel now because they posted a retraction on the same libelous article even though very few will ever re-read it and especially not the update at the very end."
---

This reminds me of that CNN "bombshell" article about the DNC Leaks emails, where they got the email's send date wrong.

They claimed Trump Jr. got an email with the encryption keys to the DNCLeaks emails several days before the convention. Except they read the date of the email wrong and he got them a week after they came out, making it nothing more than a pointless spam email from an alt-right loon.
---

I'm right-leaning but don't really like Kavanaugh and I'm sure there are plenty of more qualified people in the United States, but yeah, like none of the accusations seem to ever have any substance at all. >_>
---

DarkRoast posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/sunday-review/brett-kavanaugh-deborah-ramirez-yale.html

NY Times adds a tiny little correction at the bottom:

Editors Note: Sept. 15, 2019
An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book's account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

-Golfclap-

Nice work, NYT

*sigh*

You haven't changed, coffeebeanz.

The MAGA republicans will never consider you one of their own, so stop defending them so much.

Makes these even more cringe-worthy


---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxdALlD42AA" data-time="
---

Spooking posted...

NYT peddles fake news and the usual suspects eat it up.

---

Coffeebeanz: why do people act like i'm right wing?????????

Also coffeebeanz: *posts stupid shit like this topic*
---

TheGreatGeno6 posted...

Coffeebeanz: why do people act like i'm right wing?????????

Also coffeebeanz: *posts stupid shit like this topic*

---

Coastal_elite posted...

*sigh*

You haven't changed, coffeebeanz.

The MAGA republicans will never consider you one of their own, so stop defending them so much.

You'd think bullying her off the site would have convinced her that your perspective on issues was good and just. I wonder what the hell happened?
---

I like how some people act like others aren't allowed to be objective at times.
---

Tbf, her declining to be interviewed doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The fact people that weren't her don't recall it means fuck all.
---

Funkydog posted...

Tbf, her declining to be interviewed doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The fact people that weren't her don't recall it means fuck all.

Someone making a claim about someone else being assaulted should -always- be followed by the alleged victim backing up the accusation.

If some random book says Danny DeVito farted in Taylor Swift's face, it means literally nothing unless Taylor Swift comments on the fart.

If you don't have that key piece of information, you don't have a story, and you don't publish.

A very similar issue happened with the Rolling Stone / UVa story. The reporter couldn't be bothered to verify anything from any other person on campus besides the accuser. She could've easily discovered that the fraternity was closed that night, that no person matched the description of the assaulter, and that her named friends openly disagreed with her account. A reporter has to do some actual investigation before sharting out a story like this.
---

why is he back in the news??
---

Yeah politics aside this is garbage.

Like, hey the president says we're the enemy of the people. Let's suck more.
---

CyricZ posted...

Yeah politics aside this is garbage.

Like, hey the president says we're the enemy of the people. Let's suck more.

This is exactly the problem.

Trump gets away with SO MUCH garbage because he's painted the media as being "fake" and untrustworthy.

The last thing we need is for the media to actually live up to that portrayal.
---

DarkRoast posted...

Funkydog posted...

Tbf, her declining to be interviewed doesn't mean it didn't happen.

The fact people that weren't her don't recall it means fuck all.

Someone making a claim about someone else being assaulted should -always- be followed by the alleged victim backing up the accusation.

If some random book says Danny DeVito farted in Taylor Swift's face, it means literally nothing unless Taylor Swift comments on the fart.

If you don't have that key piece of information, you don't have a story, and you don't publish.

A very similar issue happened with the Rolling Stone / UVa story. The reporter couldn't be bothered to verify anything from any other person on campus besides the accuser. She could've easily discovered that the fraternity was closed that night, that no person matched the description of the assaulter, and that her named friends openly disagreed with her account. A reporter has to do some actual investigation before sharting out a story like this.

I don't see how that changes what I said, and nor did I claim what you said wasn't true. Should they not have published as it was? Probably. But it doesn't invalidate it either and make it false It just means it's something to not rely on as is.
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

This is why Trump is right

Hahahaha. Lmao as if trump says things that are right ever.
---

Machete posted...

ThePrinceFish posted...

This is why Trump is right

Hahahaha. Lmao as if trump says things that are right ever.

Pretty much anything Trump says is the opposite of the truth.

Which is why I really, really wish the media would stop doing this.
---

Machete posted...

ThePrinceFish posted...

This is why Trump is right

Hahahaha. Lmao as if trump says things that are right ever.

Wonderful contribution as usual, Machete. You are a credit to the board. Goad any of those MAGA hat wearing bastards into letting you beat them up lately?
---

The media is just making Trump look less insane now by actually proving him correct.

Perhaps they should stop producing fake news and only push facts and vetted information that checks out.
---

RiKuToTheMiGhtY posted...

The media is just making Trump look less insane now by actually proving him correct.

Perhaps they should stop producing fake news and only push facts and vetted information that checks out.

It's not like it's all that hard to post stuff that is blatantly wrong with Trump and his administration.

Not sure why they need to dig up tabloid garbage instead. It just weakens their ability to report on actual, serious stories.
---

Why do shit like this when you already have plenty of ammo? smh

---

ThePrinceFish posted...

Machete posted...

ThePrinceFish posted...

This is why Trump is right

Hahahaha. Lmao as if trump says things that are right ever.

Wonderful contribution as usual, Machete. You are a credit to the board. Goad any of those MAGA hat wearing bastards into letting you beat them up lately?

Invalid attempt at attacking me. I have still never seen anyone wearing one of those and I doubt I ever will. People just don't do that where I live. Even if someone did cross my path while wearing one, that scenario wouldn't be convenient or the option I would attempt. I would have to be wasted to even bother. You are once again misrepresenting what I said. In fact, you dragging that into any interacting with me is a more common meme that the post or pic at this point, so congrats on that I suppose shrug emoji
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

This is why Trump is right when he complains about how Kavanaugh should be able to sue for libel. Being a public figure shouldn't make it legal to maliciously and purposefully smear you for years with zero evidence whatsoever.

The retraction never reaches as far as the accusation.

He would never win the case and it would more than likely massively backfire on him.

It's the exact same reason Trump has never sued the people who accused him of rape/sexual assault/harassment despite threatening to do so.
---

You have to prove malicious intent in a libel case.

Although IIRC the UVa administrator actually won the libel case against Rolling Stone
---

Bio1590 posted...

ThePrinceFish posted...

This is why Trump is right when he complains about how Kavanaugh should be able to sue for libel. Being a public figure shouldn't make it legal to maliciously and purposefully smear you for years with zero evidence whatsoever.

The retraction never reaches as far as the accusation.

He would never win the case and it would more than likely massively backfire on him.

It's the exact same reason Trump has never sued the people who accused him of rape/sexual assault/harassment despite threatening to do so.

It's almost like I'm criticising the current process of making it impossible to sue for libel rather than suggesting he should take up an obviously ill fated lawsuit.
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

Bio1590 posted...

ThePrinceFish posted...

This is why Trump is right when he complains about how Kavanaugh should be able to sue for libel. Being a public figure shouldn't make it legal to maliciously and purposefully smear you for years with zero evidence whatsoever.

The retraction never reaches as far as the accusation.

He would never win the case and it would more than likely massively backfire on him.

It's the exact same reason Trump has never sued the people who accused him of rape/sexual assault/harassment despite threatening to do so.

It's almost like I'm criticising the current process of making it impossible to sue for libel rather than suggesting he should take up an obviously ill fated lawsuit.

Then you should be far more clear than that.

And it's far from "impossible" to sue for libel. The last thing we need is libel/slander lawsuits being thrown around everywhere that people like Trump want to be able to do and abuse so they could win them simply as a war of attrition, which is the entire reason anti-SLAPP laws exist as well.
---

I agree with Bio on this one. The bar for libel needs to be set high, or else people could use the threat of a libel lawsuit to "silence" others.
---

DarkRoast posted...

Seriously though, how terrible do you have to be at journalism that you actually publish a story that the alleged victim denies when asked?

Nothing in the article says the alleged victim denies it. For someone complaining about the dishonesty of the publication, you're wording this pretty dishonestly yourself.
---

funny how literally none of this Kavanaugh drama, real or fake, would have happened if Mitch McConnell had just done his job.
---