The New York Times’s travesty of journalistic ethics

[EvilEyeFleegle]

A WaPo Op/Ed by Kathleen Parker:

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


"The recent fiasco at the New York Times, which last weekend published the latest uncorroborated sexual assault accusation against Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, was a monument to hearsay and a travesty of journalistic ethics.
The story, since modified to include crucial information, was an adapted excerpt from a book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” written by two Times staff writers, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. In it, the authors reported allegations by a Yale classmate that Kavanaugh was at a “drunken dorm party” where “friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student.”
Setting aside the logistics of such a feat, more eye-popping was the omission from the original Times piece that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed for the book — and, according to friends, doesn’t remember any such incident .
Such an oversight is inexcusable.

The facts that the alleged victim refused to be interviewed by the authors, and apparently told friends that she doesn’t recall any such incident, amount to the very definition of a non-story. For the record, The Post learned of the accusation last year but declined to publish it because the alleged witnesses weren’t identified and the woman said to be involved refused to comment."

 

[Maxdeath]

The biggest problem with journalism today is that they are in such a hurry to put out stories, any story, that no one takes the time to research or even spellcheck. They allow personal feelings to lead.

 

[August West]

It was the NYT reporter Judith Miller who wrote the nutty stories about Iraq having WMDs. They`ll never meet the high standards of journalism we see in the Moonie`s Washington Times or Breitbart.

 

[The Purge]

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The NYT is a racist publication that the left wing bigots adore

 

[Olde Europe]

A WaPo Op/Ed by Kathleen Parker:

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

Kathleen Parker is a rightarded dimwit above the level of The Purge - but just barely. Construing out of a single omission in a single story, later corrected, a case of "travesty of journalistic ethics" is as dumb, actually way dumber, than generalizations usually are, say, like construing out of Kavanaugh's misbehavior an "all rapists" allegation. It's way dumber because journalistic lapses by the paper of record are far less prevalent, and public, whereas the Kavanaugh-type assault is far more prevalent, but private, and grossly under-reported.

I, for one, am most glad that the times of the usual suppression of stories based on "she said, but he denied, strongly" - so we won't publish - is coming to an end. That habit bears a lot of responsibility for the fact that sexual misconduct went largely, in the overwhelming majority of cases, unpunished - and undeterred. Parker, in her base stupidity, doesn't like it, and neither do the mouth-breathing denizens of Rightardia, from Lindsay Graham on down to the likes of The Purge. Too bad. The (rich, white, male) privilege of having their way with women, particularly down the societal ladder, is coming to an end, and no amount of irate screeching will stop that.

 

[Oddball]

Kathleen Parker is a rightarded dimwit above the level of The Purge - but just barely. Construing out of a single omission in a single story, later corrected, a case of "travesty of journalistic ethics" is as dumb, actually way dumber, than generalizations usually are, say, like construing out of Kavanaugh's misbehavior an "all rapists" allegation. It's way dumber because journalistic lapses by the paper of record are far less prevalent, and public, whereas the Kavanaugh-type assault is far more prevalent, but private, and grossly under-reported.

I, for one, am most glad that the times of the usual suppression of stories based on "she said, but he denied, strongly" - so we won't publish - is coming to an end. That habit bears a lot of responsibility for the fact that sexual misconduct went largely, in the overwhelming majority of cases, unpunished - and undeterred. Parker, in her base stupidity, doesn't like it, and neither do the mouth-breathing denizens of Rightardia, from Lindsay Graham on down to the likes of The Purge. Too bad. The (rich, white, male) privilege of having their way with women, particularly down the societal ladder, is coming to an end, and no amount of irate screeching will stop that.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

A WaPo Op/Ed by Kathleen Parker:

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

Kathleen Parker is a rightarded dimwit above the level of The Purge - but just barely. Construing out of a single omission in a single story, later corrected, a case of "travesty of journalistic ethics" is as dumb, actually way dumber, than generalizations usually are, say, like construing out of Kavanaugh's misbehavior an "all rapists" allegation. It's way dumber because journalistic lapses by the paper of record are far less prevalent, and public, whereas the Kavanaugh-type assault is far more prevalent, but private, and grossly under-reported.

Was it proven that Kavanaugh committed sexual assault? If not, how can they be labeled as "Kavanaugh-type" assaults?

I, for one, am most glad that the times of the usual suppression of stories based on "she said, but he denied, strongly" - so we won't publish - is coming to an end. That habit bears a lot of responsibility for the fact that sexual misconduct went largely, in the overwhelming majority of cases, unpunished - and undeterred. Parker, in her base stupidity, doesn't like it, and neither do the mouth-breathing denizens of Rightardia, from Lindsay Graham on down to the likes of The Purge. Too bad. The (rich, white, male) privilege of having their way with women, particularly down the societal ladder, is coming to an end, and no amount of irate screeching will stop that.

There's a vast difference between suppressing a story and failing to include pertinent information that has a direct bearing on the person in question's guilt.

 

[Olde Europe]

A WaPo Op/Ed by Kathleen Parker:

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

Kathleen Parker is a rightarded dimwit above the level of The Purge - but just barely. Construing out of a single omission in a single story, later corrected, a case of "travesty of journalistic ethics" is as dumb, actually way dumber, than generalizations usually are, say, like construing out of Kavanaugh's misbehavior an "all rapists" allegation. It's way dumber because journalistic lapses by the paper of record are far less prevalent, and public, whereas the Kavanaugh-type assault is far more prevalent, but private, and grossly under-reported.

Was it proven that Kavanaugh committed sexual assault? If not, how can they be labeled as "Kavanaugh-type" assaults?

I, for one, am most glad that the times of the usual suppression of stories based on "she said, but he denied, strongly" - so we won't publish - is coming to an end. That habit bears a lot of responsibility for the fact that sexual misconduct went largely, in the overwhelming majority of cases, unpunished - and undeterred. Parker, in her base stupidity, doesn't like it, and neither do the mouth-breathing denizens of Rightardia, from Lindsay Graham on down to the likes of The Purge. Too bad. The (rich, white, male) privilege of having their way with women, particularly down the societal ladder, is coming to an end, and no amount of irate screeching will stop that.

There's a vast difference between suppressing a story and failing to include pertinent information that has a direct bearing on the person in question's guilt.

Ah, a type of assault, namely, developing predatory behavior in conjunction with others during drunken college nights, exploiting the weakness of inebriated women like smallish, weak, unattractive assholes do, can only be named Kavanaugh-type assaults after they've been proven? For that is what all the accusations against Kavanaugh have in common - in case you failed to notice, for reasons defying understanding.

And the press is adjudicating guilt? Whether or not one of the victims is prepared to speak to the press is not in any way pertinent to the perpetrator's guilt - just an understandable decision considering the meat grinder through which we put women accusing their high-profile assaulters.

Say, Ghost, did you cook up that sleazy bullshit all on your own?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

A WaPo Op/Ed by Kathleen Parker:

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

Kathleen Parker is a rightarded dimwit above the level of The Purge - but just barely. Construing out of a single omission in a single story, later corrected, a case of "travesty of journalistic ethics" is as dumb, actually way dumber, than generalizations usually are, say, like construing out of Kavanaugh's misbehavior an "all rapists" allegation. It's way dumber because journalistic lapses by the paper of record are far less prevalent, and public, whereas the Kavanaugh-type assault is far more prevalent, but private, and grossly under-reported.

Was it proven that Kavanaugh committed sexual assault? If not, how can they be labeled as "Kavanaugh-type" assaults?

I, for one, am most glad that the times of the usual suppression of stories based on "she said, but he denied, strongly" - so we won't publish - is coming to an end. That habit bears a lot of responsibility for the fact that sexual misconduct went largely, in the overwhelming majority of cases, unpunished - and undeterred. Parker, in her base stupidity, doesn't like it, and neither do the mouth-breathing denizens of Rightardia, from Lindsay Graham on down to the likes of The Purge. Too bad. The (rich, white, male) privilege of having their way with women, particularly down the societal ladder, is coming to an end, and no amount of irate screeching will stop that.

There's a vast difference between suppressing a story and failing to include pertinent information that has a direct bearing on the person in question's guilt.

Ah, a type of assault, namely, developing predatory behavior in conjunction with others during drunken college nights, exploiting the weakness of inebriated women like smallish, weak, unattractive assholes do, can only be named Kavanaugh-type assaults after they've been proven? For that is what all the accusations against Kavanaugh have in common - in case you failed to notice, for reasons defying understanding.

And the press is adjudicating guilt? Whether or not one of the victims is prepared to speak to the press is not in any way pertinent to the perpetrator's guilt - just an understandable decision considering the meat grinder through which we put women accusing their high-profile assaulters.

Say, Ghost, did you cook up that sleazy bullshit all on your own?

Huh..so..rule of law is irrelevant/ Just make an accusation..no wait..she's made no accusation---two 'witnesses'..anonymous..have made an accusation...her friends have said she has consistently denied any such thing took place. You you are going to take on yourself to believe these two people..and extend out a thin concatenation of events that point to his 'guilt'? She said, he said..should be thrown out..without evidence. Every time. You appear to wish to abrogate the rule of law in these cases..is that a correct assessment of your position? Accusations are not conviction..nor are they proof. Accusations are just that. Investigate...collect evidence..and then decide. In this case, there isn't even a 'She said' component.
The media has weaponized and politicized sexual misconduct is such a way that a mere rumor..unless it is about Trump...can ruin a person's life. Thus, it behooves the press to be sure..and to report the entire story. This was not a little omission..it was huge...and it has real consequences.

As for the article. Yes...it was a journalistic travesty..in that it omitted not only pertinent..but likely exculpatory information from the story. The woman in question has NEVER stated any such thing happened. never! In fact, she has repeatedly told her friends, over the years..that she recalls nothing of the sort. Now you can make all the explanations you wish..in order to tailor your preconceptions...but facts..are facts. The media is supposed to give us the facts. It was especially a travesty in that it led the Democratic candidates to knee-jerk in response and call for the impeachment of a sitting Justice on the basis of what amounts to a rumor! Quite frankly, it made them look stupid. I'd not vote for any of them just based on their reactions..I would wish a President who believes in the rule of law and measured response.

I am offended by your calling this person a victim...without her consent..without her knowledge. That's a kind of an assault, as well. What if, she is correct..and nothing happened? Not only are you wrong...you have wronged her...and you have minimized any 'real' assault by offering a perfect defense. She is being used..and that is wrong, as well.
Sexual assault and sexual misconduct are serious issues..and we need to address it..seriously. Not with rumor and innuendo..not with trial in the partisan media. By the rule of law...if the accusations are not actionable..they should be taken with a grain of salt. I will not, for one, buy into ending these abuses by allowing every accusation to stand...solely on the word of an accuser--because she is a woman.

This has the feel of a pure political hatchet job, to me.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

A WaPo Op/Ed by Kathleen Parker:

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

Kathleen Parker is a rightarded dimwit above the level of The Purge - but just barely. Construing out of a single omission in a single story, later corrected, a case of "travesty of journalistic ethics" is as dumb, actually way dumber, than generalizations usually are, say, like construing out of Kavanaugh's misbehavior an "all rapists" allegation. It's way dumber because journalistic lapses by the paper of record are far less prevalent, and public, whereas the Kavanaugh-type assault is far more prevalent, but private, and grossly under-reported.

Was it proven that Kavanaugh committed sexual assault? If not, how can they be labeled as "Kavanaugh-type" assaults?

I, for one, am most glad that the times of the usual suppression of stories based on "she said, but he denied, strongly" - so we won't publish - is coming to an end. That habit bears a lot of responsibility for the fact that sexual misconduct went largely, in the overwhelming majority of cases, unpunished - and undeterred. Parker, in her base stupidity, doesn't like it, and neither do the mouth-breathing denizens of Rightardia, from Lindsay Graham on down to the likes of The Purge. Too bad. The (rich, white, male) privilege of having their way with women, particularly down the societal ladder, is coming to an end, and no amount of irate screeching will stop that.

There's a vast difference between suppressing a story and failing to include pertinent information that has a direct bearing on the person in question's guilt.

Ah, a type of assault, namely, developing predatory behavior in conjunction with others during drunken college nights, exploiting the weakness of inebriated women like smallish, weak, unattractive assholes do, can only be named Kavanaugh-type assaults after they've been proven?

Um, yeah. That's how you do innocent-until-proven-guilty which is the bedrock principle of our judicial system.

For that is what all the accusations against Kavanaugh have in common - in case you failed to notice, for reasons defying understanding.

You know what else the accusations have in common? None of them were proven.

And the press is adjudicating guilt?

Why not? You're adjudicating guilt based on mere accusations so why should the press be any different?

Whether or not one of the victims is prepared to speak to the press is not in any way pertinent to the perpetrator's guilt - just an understandable decision considering the meat grinder through which we put women accusing their high-profile assaulters.

See, not only did she refuse to speak to the press, she doesn't even remember the incident.

Say, Ghost, did you cook up that sleazy bullshit all on your own?

Which part of my post is "sleazy bullshit", the part where I simply asked if the accusations had been proven or the part where I state the obvious fact that suppressing sexual assault cases has nothing to do with omitting important information about an alleged sexual assault in a newspaper article?

 

[Olde Europe]

Huh..so..rule of law is irrelevant/ Just make an accusation..no wait..she's made no accusation---two 'witnesses'..anonymous..have made an accusation.

Yes, that's news. It MUST be news, otherwise predators won't be exposed for what they are, and the Weinsteins ruin millions upon millions of lives. I really can't tell you how much I resent the male whines about how a press rumor (two witnesses!) can ruin a life, and then I look at Kavanaugh lording over Americans for decades to come. Some ruin, that. All the while, he and his predatory ilk ruin lives all the time.

How you arrive at the "rule of law is irrelevant" is a mystery. That's an entirely separate issue, and I haven't spoken to that at any length. All I want is predatory behavior no longer kept under wraps, so that women are encouraged to come forward and expose the predators. You have daughters / granddaughters? If so, you should be with me all the way, for their sake at least, if the gross unfairness and brutality of the current situation doesn't compel you already.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Huh..so..rule of law is irrelevant/ Just make an accusation..no wait..she's made no accusation---two 'witnesses'..anonymous..have made an accusation.

Yes, that's news. It MUST be news, otherwise predators won't be exposed for what they are, and the Weinsteins ruin millions upon millions of lives. I really can't tell you how much I resent the male whines about how a press rumor (two witnesses!) can ruin a life, and then I look at Kavanaugh lording over Americans for decades to come. Some ruin, that. All the while, he and his predatory ilk ruin lives all the time.

How you arrive at the "rule of law is irrelevant" is a mystery. That's an entirely separate issue, and I haven't spoken to that at any length. All I want is predatory behavior no longer kept under wraps, so that women are encouraged to come forward and expose the predators. You have daughters / granddaughters? If so, you should be with me all the way, for their sake at least, if the gross unfairness and brutality of the current situation doesn't compel you already.

Interesting...you seem to completely ignore the fact that the putative 'victim' has not only made no complaint..but has consistently denied that anything happened. Does her voice count? Two witnesses..that remain anonymous--yet you give them credence? You take Weinstein..and the tons of evidence in that case..and equate it with Kavanaugh..and the lack of any evidence. Not the same thing at all, IMO. I think that you have made up your mind..and now everything is grist for your mill, third party accusation that flies in the face of the woman's repeated statements? No problem..she's 'scared'. Except you have zero evidence of that....just a 'gut' call. Not enough, IMO.
You railed at white men in power, abusing their positions, ignoring that many a non-white man in power has done the same--why do I bring this up? Because your argument seems to fit a pervasive and persistent narrative, rather than being the result of cogent thought and analysis. People abuse power..it may shock you to learn that some women have done it as well...even on a sexual level. I don't offer this as an excuse, since nothing excuses such behavior, but as a data point, that you might see the larger picture.
I get it that you resent and are angered that Kavanough is sitting on the court. I would put it to you that epic misfires such as this NYT article strengthen his position, rather than the reverse.
How did I arrive at the 'rule of law' argument? Easy..trial by rumor and innuendo in the media obviates the rule of law..it imposes sanctions without proving guilt..there is no way for a man to exonerate himself from a false accusation in the public forum. Make no mistake, false accusations happen, I for one, am not willing accept the ruining of a man, as collateral damage in the rush to clean up our society.

My daughters, etc.. ...when they were younger..we discussed this a lot. I always told them that the very first thing they do is file a police report..always. It is hard for me to equate this event with my kids..since I would believe my daughters..and if they said nothing happened..I would believe that, as well. BTW..whatever happened to 'believe the victim'? Now we believe third party stories without corroboration and ignore the putative victim's input?

I can't do much about your resentment of 'male whines'--except to point out that more than a few men are tired of 'female whines'--not that either parties are likely to find a solution their issues.

 

[wamose]

The Times belongs in the checkout line at the grocery store. Right below the Enquirer. What a slanderous propaganda rag they turned into.

 

[Olde Europe]

It is hard for me to equate this event with my kids..since I would believe my daughters.

There you go. And why is that? Are these not someone's daughters?

About one percent of rapes result in a conviction. There is a name for that, and its spelled "impunity". In cases of sexual assault the situation is even worse. You stated that sexual assault is serious, and it needs to be tackled, and yet you offered nothing to change that state of pervasive impunity. You come down on the side of the perpetrators who shall not be exposed for what they are, unless they are convicted before a court of law. That's too little, too late, and a guarantee that nothing will change, because a society that isn't even aware of the scale of the problem won't muster the energy to change. The only way out is to trust women unless there is compelling evidence against doing so. That's a logical necessity, the whines on behalf of the perpetrators notwithstanding.

Really, Eye, if you followed the Kavanaugh story, accusations piling up, all following the same pattern, and you still can't draw the appropriate conclusions, and have nothing to offer to change the rape culture of impunity, you are not helping. At all.

 

[Polishprince]

This is all rubbish about Kav, everyone knows it, even the libs.

If Kav was the rapist and pervo that the lib media has stated, RBG wouldn't be speaking to the man. No one can tell me that this Ginsburg dame wants to be drugged and raped.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg defends Brett Kavanaugh, says he's a 'very decent' man

 

[Polishprince]

About one percent of rapes result in a conviction. There is a name for that, and its spelled "impunity". In cases of sexual assault the situation is even worse. .

I've heard that statistic- I have doubts about it, however I understand that its a pillar of liberalism and feminazism, and there are masses who say they believe it.

If only 1% of rapes are being solved, its time to hire more detectives, and build more penitentiaries to punish the 99% of rapery miscreants.

According to libs, rape is especially prevalent in college. Time for sheriff's departments in big college counties like Centre, PA and Athens, OH to boost up their Special Victims Units to resolve these cases.

The idea of having the schools merely expel accused rapists is wrong. Sending them back into the community where they can rape our mothers and sisters is unacceptable

 

[blastoff]

It is hard for me to equate this event with my kids..since I would believe my daughters.

There you go. And why is that? Are these not someone's daughters?

About one percent of rapes result in a conviction. There is a name for that, and its spelled "impunity". In cases of sexual assault the situation is even worse. You stated that sexual assault is serious, and it needs to be tackled, and yet you offered nothing to change that state of pervasive impunity. You come down on the side of the perpetrators who shall not be exposed for what they are, unless they are convicted before a court of law. That's too little, too late, and a guarantee that nothing will change, because a society that isn't even aware of the scale of the problem won't muster the energy to change. The only way out is to trust women unless there is compelling evidence against doing so. That's a logical necessity, the whines on behalf of the perpetrators notwithstanding.

Really, Eye, if you followed the Kavanaugh story, accusations piling up, all following the same pattern, and you still can't draw the appropriate conclusions, and have nothing to offer to change the rape culture of impunity, you are not helping. At all.

Hey, asshole. How about sons and grandsons? It’s okay if their worlds are ruined because someone said something happened of which there is zero proof, corroboration, and the alleged aggrieved has no recall of anything whatsoever? You deserve such a world but not the rest of us.

 

[j-mac]

A WaPo Op/Ed by Kathleen Parker:

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

Kathleen Parker is a rightarded dimwit above the level of The Purge - but just barely. Construing out of a single omission in a single story, later corrected, a case of "travesty of journalistic ethics" is as dumb, actually way dumber, than generalizations usually are, say, like construing out of Kavanaugh's misbehavior an "all rapists" allegation. It's way dumber because journalistic lapses by the paper of record are far less prevalent, and public, whereas the Kavanaugh-type assault is far more prevalent, but private, and grossly under-reported.

Was it proven that Kavanaugh committed sexual assault? If not, how can they be labeled as "Kavanaugh-type" assaults?

I, for one, am most glad that the times of the usual suppression of stories based on "she said, but he denied, strongly" - so we won't publish - is coming to an end. That habit bears a lot of responsibility for the fact that sexual misconduct went largely, in the overwhelming majority of cases, unpunished - and undeterred. Parker, in her base stupidity, doesn't like it, and neither do the mouth-breathing denizens of Rightardia, from Lindsay Graham on down to the likes of The Purge. Too bad. The (rich, white, male) privilege of having their way with women, particularly down the societal ladder, is coming to an end, and no amount of irate screeching will stop that.

There's a vast difference between suppressing a story and failing to include pertinent information that has a direct bearing on the person in question's guilt.

Ah, a type of assault, namely, developing predatory behavior in conjunction with others during drunken college nights, exploiting the weakness of inebriated women like smallish, weak, unattractive assholes do, can only be named Kavanaugh-type assaults after they've been proven? For that is what all the accusations against Kavanaugh have in common - in case you failed to notice, for reasons defying understanding.

And the press is adjudicating guilt? Whether or not one of the victims is prepared to speak to the press is not in any way pertinent to the perpetrator's guilt - just an understandable decision considering the meat grinder through which we put women accusing their high-profile assaulters.

Say, Ghost, did you cook up that sleazy bullshit all on your own?

Ever hear of due process?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[j-mac]

Huh..so..rule of law is irrelevant/ Just make an accusation..no wait..she's made no accusation---two 'witnesses'..anonymous..have made an accusation.

Yes, that's news. It MUST be news, otherwise predators won't be exposed for what they are, and the Weinsteins ruin millions upon millions of lives. I really can't tell you how much I resent the male whines about how a press rumor (two witnesses!) can ruin a life, and then I look at Kavanaugh lording over Americans for decades to come. Some ruin, that. All the while, he and his predatory ilk ruin lives all the time.

How you arrive at the "rule of law is irrelevant" is a mystery. That's an entirely separate issue, and I haven't spoken to that at any length. All I want is predatory behavior no longer kept under wraps, so that women are encouraged to come forward and expose the predators. You have daughters / granddaughters? If so, you should be with me all the way, for their sake at least, if the gross unfairness and brutality of the current situation doesn't compel you already.

Seems like you've made up your mind as to the accusations being credible or not...As a father of a daughter, I can't express to you enough how disappointed I would be in her if she made accusations in pursuit of a political agenda as Dr. Ford did.

If we truly believed in feminism, and empowerment, then we should hold her as accountable for her trash as anyone else.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk