The Jury Talks Back


Claim: NYT Editors Removed the Passage About How the Anti-Kavanaugh Witness Not Remembering Anything

Filed under: Uncategorized — Patterico @ 7:56 am

A recent New York Times article tried in vain to resuscitate a discredited allegation about Brett Kavanaugh. As I mentioned yesterday, there was a curious omission from the original version of the piece:

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.

The reporters knew about that detail because they had included it in their book.

Here’s a clip where the reporters now allege that the editors were responsible for deleting the critical passage:

I believe them. This shows that the editors are hacks, which we already knew. I don’t think this lets the reporters off the hook. They don’t seem particularly exercised about the omission. They almost seem to defend it.

Chuck Philips (formerly of the Los Angeles Times) once wrote a looong blockbuster front-page story about how a murder defendant was not guilty because he had an alibi showing he was all the way across the country in church, instead of in Compton on the night of the murder. I later read court documents showing that the defendant had admitted, in a recorded interview, being in Compton on the night of the murders. I asked Philips about it in a phone conversation, pressing him as to why that little tidbit had not appeared in his blockbuster story (along with the videos of the church service that disproved the alleged alibi). He said it had been cut for reasons of space.

He didn’t seem too upset about it either.

This is who they are and this is what they do.

Why provide the reader with the full picture when the full picture would just fully inform confuse them? If the inconvenient fact makes for a less powerful story, the solution is simple. Cut the inconvenient fact.

You know. For reasons of space.

If you want to see how a real reporter handles the truth, watch this report from Jan Crowford of CBS:

That’s how you do it.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview

Powered by WordPress.