The New York Times’s travesty of journalistic ethics

[Ghost of a Rider]

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.

Here's the problem with your arguments as I see them: You wish for these cases to stop being suppressed and for more of them to come to light and investigated. Fine. But even when one is brought to light - as in Kavanaugh's case - you automatically assume the accused is guilty. Why? Not because the investigation determined he was but rather, merely because he was accused.

This is why EvilEyeFleegle brought up rule of law. Rule of law and due process do not seem to factor into your considerations at all; If he's accused, crucify him.

Our judicial system is not perfect but that's only because we are not perfect. What might seem like sexual harassment to a particular woman may have been nothing more than obscure innuendo addressed to no one in particular. In other words, what might be claimed as harassment or assault was in actuality, not harassment or assault. This is why each case should be investigated. It's the only way the case can be fair to the accused as well as to the accuser. Notice I say "accused" as opposed to "guilty".

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

Wrong,

About six percent of rape accusations result in a conviction and close to the same percentage of accusations are proven false

The narrative among every espert is that if it is not PROVEN false it is assumed to be true which is why they arrive at the ludicrous conclusion that false accusations are exceedingly rare.

They ignore that the smalle number of PROVEN false and the small number of PROVEN true accusations combined leaves a gigantic majority of UNKNOWN many of which can easily be presumed to be false accusations.

There is no pattern whatsoeevr in the Kavanugh accusations in fact the latest one by Max Stiers clearly and irrefutably describe Kavanaugh AS A VICTIM.

There is no rape culture no impunity and your apologetics for exposing alleged perpegtrators in the media is a transparent attempt to ignore civil rights and rule of law in favor of a witch hunt.,

 

[Ridgerunner]

Olde Europe throws a party...

 

[Olde Europe]

You wish for these cases to stop being suppressed and for more of them to come to light and investigated. Fine.

See, that wasn't so hard to understand.

The rest of your posting is a valiant defense of the current situation, which amounts to, "He was accused? Probably just a misunderstanding, and why ruin a good man's life over a mere 'she said'? So, crucify her!" You are, of course, free to associate yourself with that.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You wish for these cases to stop being suppressed and for more of them to come to light and investigated. Fine.

See, that wasn't so hard to understand.

The rest of your posting is a valiant defense of the current situation, which amounts to, "He was accused? Probably just a misunderstanding, and why ruin a good man's life over a mere 'she said'? So, crucify her!" You are, of course, free to associate yourself with that.

Except...as you keep passing over..there is no 'she said'...in this instance.

 

[Olde Europe]

Except...as you keep passing over..there is no 'she said'...in this instance.

Yes, there were multiple instances of "she said", and one instance of "they said". And that's relevant for the proposed change in reporting principles how, exactly? ... in light of multiple victims and multiple witnesses keeping quiet for decades, and multiple assaults not reported on. Why on earth doesn't that bother you at all, so that you keep harping about one victim refusing to be put through the meat grinder?

Really, and with all due respect, Eye, I cannot begin to understand your argumentative strategy here.

 

[Aletheia4u]

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."

People don't know. But Pres.Trump does not have full control over the government. Someone else is pulling the strings. And whomever it is. That person have to be someone that the whole entire intelligence community are accustomed of taking orders from and knows all of the ropes. But Bush and Clinton knows them. But are to old to perform their duties. And Obama was going to move to India after he leaves office. Where he was offered a job working for a law firm that helps foreign pedophiles. And he had bought a home in California. But instead, he has changed his mind, and moved near Washington DC. where he cannot fondle with young little boys without being seeing. Which in India. They don't care who a person have sex with. and which he was helping them out to build up their economy by sending them U.S. jobs

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.

Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit.
MassPrivateI: CIA controls mass media like the NY Times, Time Magazine and much more

Last year CNN also hired a new national security analyst in Michael Hayden, who has served as CIA Director, NSA Director, Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and an Air Force general.

Former CIA analyst and now paid CNN analyst Phil Mudd, who last year caused Cuomo’s show to have to issue a retraction and apology for a completely baseless claim he made on national television asserting that WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange is “a pedophile”, is once again making headlines for suggesting that the FBI is entering into a showdown with the current administration over Trump’s decision to declassify the controversial Nunes memo. Mainstream Media Outlets Keep Hiring CIA/Intel Veterans, And It’s Gross

A PSYOP is a prescribed process used to induce or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to an originators interest. PSYOPs are routinely used by governments and militaries to effect change across the full spectrum of political, military, economic, and ideological actions. PSYOPs are so widely used that they may have become the most exploited means to achieve national objectives. Many governments routinely use them against their own citizens.
A simple Google internet search will confirm that PSYOPs are part of modern military and governmental operations. Whole organizations and bureaucracies have been built around these undertakings. Why is this being done? The answer is clear, because they are extremely effective at achieving their objectives. PSYOPS have become so effective they are now being used on world populations at an ever increasing and alarming rate. In almost all cases the affected populations are not aware that this is occurring.


PSYOPs by their very nature are secretive. In order to effect change, its’ existence and intentions must not be known by the intended recipients. If an operation was discovered it would not be effective and the receiver would not be misled. This piece of information alone means that evidence of PSYOPs is hard to obtain. Governments go to great lengths to conceal them but some have been revealed. A number of readily available examples are those used by the military. Are Psychological Operations (PSYOPs) Used to Influence Public Opinion of UFOs?

Dubai, May 17: An Emirati lawyer from Dubai has offered a job in his law firm to outgoing US President Barack Obama, so that he can become "closely acquainted" with the "meaning of tolerance of Islam" once he leaves the White House. Eisa Bin Haidar made his proposal on Twitter, also promising to pay for the president's air fare to the Gulf state.

Read more at: Dubai lawyer offers job to Obama

Feared Collapse Of United States And Saudi Arabia In 2016 Cause Russian Dread

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You wish for these cases to stop being suppressed and for more of them to come to light and investigated. Fine.

See, that wasn't so hard to understand.

The rest of your posting is a valiant defense of the current situation, which amounts to, "He was accused? Probably just a misunderstanding, and why ruin a good man's life over a mere 'she said'? So, crucify her!" You are, of course, free to associate yourself with that.

1.) Wrong. In no way did I say anything to give you the impression that "Probably a misunderstanding" is my approach to this sort of thing. What I said was that sometimes what is thought to be sexual assault or harassment is not. This happens to be the truth and what's more, you know this.

But just in case you are, by some universal paradox, not aware that some cases are false, Here is an article from USA Today by a lawyer who used to prosecute sexual assault cases. In fact, it was inspired by the then recent Kavanaugh case and it gives a telling and unique perspective on these types of cases. Below is a quote from the article:

"My default position is to believe women who say they have been sexually assaulted. Making an allegation of sexual assault is not the type of attention most women want to needlessly bring to themselves. But not all allegations of any crime, including sexual assault, are real."

2.) This case goes way beyond "she said". As you well know, the accusations were brought up and discussed in the hearings and the FBI conducted an investigation and Kavanaugh was ultimately sworn in. This suggests to me that there was not enough meat to the allegations to prevent his appointment to the Supreme Court.

3.) I have presented no defense of Kavanaugh, nor have I attempted to explain, excuse or justify his (alleged) actions. In fact , I have said nothing either way about his guilt or innocence other than to ask if the accusations were proven. This is an assumption on your part.

4.) I never said a word about his accuser so "crucify her!" is yet another assumption on your part.

5.) If by "valiant defense of the current situation" you mean I am defending the findings of the hearing and investigation, you are absolutely correct. Because unfortunately for you and your kneejerk judgmental approach to these types of cases, this is the current situation. The "current situation" you refer to is no longer current.

 

[Olde Europe]

1.) Wrong. In no way did I say anything to give you the impression that "Probably a misunderstanding" is my approach to this sort of thing.

Naw, of course you didn't:

"What might seem like sexual harassment to a particular woman may have been nothing more than obscure innuendo addressed to no one in particular. In other words, what might be claimed as harassment or assault was in actuality, not harassment or assault."

You do know that your prior postings don't disappear in some ether, never to be found again, don't you? And so your mendacity is easily exposed. You have nothing of any worth to say, but go to considerable lengths to blab your mindless bullshit. Pitiful.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Except...as you keep passing over..there is no 'she said'...in this instance.

Yes, there were multiple instances of "she said", and one instance of "they said". And that's relevant for the proposed change in reporting principles how, exactly? ... in light of multiple victims and multiple witnesses keeping quiet for decades, and multiple assaults not reported on. Why on earth doesn't that bother you at all, so that you keep harping about one victim refusing to be put through the meat grinder?

Really, and with all due respect, Eye, I cannot begin to understand your argumentative strategy here.

Simple..this thread is about the NYT gaffe and the one woman affected. She has never said anything happened. In fact, she has said it didn't. The story left out essential information...thus leading to a knee jerk reaction.
Meanwhile, you continue to assume her motives...without giving her the courtesy of believing her at face value...much as you accuse others of doing to women who make accusations.

This thread is not about the many accusations directed at Kavanaugh...you might note I've not weighed in at all..on the wider subject of his putative guilt or innocence.
The NYT screwed up...is my bottom line.
If you are about believing the 'victim'... then why so resistant to doing so here?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

1.) Wrong. In no way did I say anything to give you the impression that "Probably a misunderstanding" is my approach to this sort of thing.

Naw, of course you didn't:

"What might seem like sexual harassment to a particular woman may have been nothing more than obscure innuendo addressed to no one in particular. In other words, what might be claimed as harassment or assault was in actuality, not harassment or assault."

You're going to have to help me here and walk me through this because it looks like one of us has a problem with the English language and I'm pretty sure it's not me. Tell me where I said in that comment that I assume any sexual assault/harassment case is just a misunderstanding. Furthermore, show me how pointing out that some allegations are not true means I defended Kavanaugh.

Some allegations are not true and many times actions or words are misconstrued as harassment when they are not. This is a fact. I know it's a fact. You know it's a fact. The lawyer in the article I linked said so himself. You know, the person who ACTUALLY worked these types of cases. Did you not read the article?

You know what else is a fact? Sometimes the allegations are true (weren't expecting that, were you?). I know it's a fact. You know it's a fact.

So you see, my approach to these kinds of cases (or any case for that matter) is that sometimes the allegations are true and sometimes they're not. The difference between you and me is that I consider BOTH of these facts when a case like this comes up. You apparently do not.

You do know that your prior postings don't disappear in some ether, never to be found again, don't you? And so your mendacity is easily exposed. You have nothing of any worth to say, but go to considerable lengths to blab your mindless bullshit. Pitiful.

If I thought my posts were disappearing ten minutes after posting them I wouldn't bother posting. That was a rather silly thing to say. It is also silly and disingenuous to deliberately misconstrue my citing facts as mendacity.

 

[Olde Europe]

Simple..this thread is about the NYT gaffe and the one woman affected. She has never said anything happened. In fact, she has said it didn't. The story left out essential information...thus leading to a knee jerk reaction.
Meanwhile, you continue to assume her motives...without giving her the courtesy of believing her at face value...much as you accuse others of doing to women who make accusations.

This thread is not about the many accusations directed at Kavanaugh...you might note I've not weighed in at all..on the wider subject of his putative guilt or innocence.
The NYT screwed up...is my bottom line.
If you are about believing the 'victim'... then why so resistant to doing so here?

She said, she didn't remember the incident. The NYT "gaffe" is minor, not mentioning the victim (according to witnesses) is not talking. Eff'n big deal. Moreover, this is not about "guilt or innocence" - that's what happens before the courts, even though you seem desperate to conflate the issues. This is about reporting, and the threshold women's victimization has to cross for the press to perk up, to find a spine, and to report. Even while I am not equaling the two, Weinstein's brutality was enabled by a press well aware of the goings on - not to mention his best buddy Tarantino, who also knew - and nothing leaked out. That is an indirect contribution to the crimes, and, for heaven's sake, you still haven't proposed anything to end that sordid state of affairs other than to hyperventilate about a minor "gaffe".

Really, Eye, we have to pretend to be stupid and ignorant, and not to remember the other stories swirling around Kavanaugh like flies around a pile of shit? Is that your last word on that? I do believe the victim doesn't remember, and she probably has good reasons not to remember. The conclusion, "There is no there there", despite two witnesses, is entirely unwarranted, particularly so since the pattern was confirmed, again.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Simple..this thread is about the NYT gaffe and the one woman affected. She has never said anything happened. In fact, she has said it didn't. The story left out essential information...thus leading to a knee jerk reaction.
Meanwhile, you continue to assume her motives...without giving her the courtesy of believing her at face value...much as you accuse others of doing to women who make accusations.

This thread is not about the many accusations directed at Kavanaugh...you might note I've not weighed in at all..on the wider subject of his putative guilt or innocence.
The NYT screwed up...is my bottom line.
If you are about believing the 'victim'... then why so resistant to doing so here?

She said, she didn't remember the incident. The NYT "gaffe" is minor, not mentioning the victim (according to witnesses) is not talking. Eff'n big deal. Moreover, this is not about "guilt or innocence" - that's what happens before the courts, even though you seem desperate to conflate the issues. This is about reporting, and the threshold women's victimization has to cross for the press to perk up, to find a spine, and to report. Even while I am not equaling the two, Weinstein's brutality was enabled by a press well aware of the goings on - not to mention his best buddy Tarantino, who also knew - and nothing leaked out. That is an indirect contribution to the crimes, and, for heaven's sake, you still haven't proposed anything to end that sordid state of affairs other than to hyperventilate about a minor "gaffe".

Really, Eye, we have to pretend to be stupid and ignorant, and not to remember the other stories swirling around Kavanaugh like flies around a pile of shit? Is that your last word on that? I do believe the victim doesn't remember, and she probably has good reasons not to remember. The conclusion, "There is no there there", despite two witnesses, is entirely unwarranted, particularly so since the pattern was confirmed, again.

Again, you wish to make this about the entire Kavanaugh issue. Not really what I'm talking about.
I totally disagree with your assessment of the gaffe as minor. You have chosen to take a stand and make a judgement about this women's motives that I disagree with, as well.
I am not talking about the entire Kavanaugh case. Just this.
You choose to believe two anonymous witnesses and you have chosen to discount this women's statements...just because you can...no other real reason....in a twist of irony...I choose to believe her. Not some people whose motives are unknown and possibly suspect.
I wonder if you can step back and see how your assumptions about her statements are born of the same logic that is used by those you despise.
No matter, we're not going to agree about the egregious nature of the NYT article.

It appears to me that once you see this guy as a sleaze...it does not matter anymore..all is grist for the mill..and all that does not reflect your opinions is some sort of BS.
That is not how I operate..I can be fair..throw out the BS..and still think Kavanaugh stepped over the line on other occasions.

But printing a story about sexual misconduct without mentioning that the alleged victim denies the allegation...IS horrible journalism and stinks.

You see it otherwise...as is your right..but I can't help thinking that there's just little confirmation bias going on.

 

[Olde Europe]

But printing a story about sexual misconduct without mentioning that the alleged victim denies the allegation.

The victim does not deny the allegation. There is a direct, named witness, reporting on the incident, and two unnamed officials confirming conversations about it. Get your facts straight, please.

 

[Meathead]

But printing a story about sexual misconduct without mentioning that the alleged victim denies the allegation.

The victim does not deny the allegation. There is a direct, named witness, reporting on the incident, and two unnamed officials confirming conversations about it. Get your facts straight, please.

FFS, you sound like a first-year law student.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

But printing a story about sexual misconduct without mentioning that the alleged victim denies the allegation.

The victim does not deny the allegation. There is a direct, named witness, reporting on the incident, and two unnamed officials confirming conversations about it. Get your facts straight, please.

Facts straight, eh/ Are you playing semantics with me now? Saying that the alleged victim's denial to her friends over the years does not constitute a denial? I don't remember is just that. Pretty weak sauce...but if it help you maintain the narrative....sure.Your constant refusal to believe her...flies in the face of all I hear about believing the victim..unless of course..the 'victim' refuses to toe the line..then she's too traumatized..or whatever. I grant the woman the human right to be believed...and to be left alone.

Interesting how you pick these small lil snippets out of my post..and never really respond to the gist of what I'm saying.
Once again, not going to get drawn into the whole Kavanaugh thing. The topic here is and was the NYT's story. I'll not bother to repeat myself again. Let the crowd decide.

BTW..this is not the first time NYT has had to retract or correct a story about Kavanaugh. The New York Times issues major correction to Kavanaugh sexual assault story

One would almost think they had an agenda?

 

[Soupnazi630]

But printing a story about sexual misconduct without mentioning that the alleged victim denies the allegation.

The victim does not deny the allegation. There is a direct, named witness, reporting on the incident, and two unnamed officials confirming conversations about it. Get your facts straight, please.

Wrong.

There are two alleged victims one denies it the other is silent.

The only named witness is the accuser.

Completely weak and not even similar to other allegations.

 

[Olde Europe]

Facts straight, eh/ Are you playing semantics with me now? Saying that the alleged victim's denial to her friends over the years does not constitute a denial? I don't remember is just that. Pretty weak sauce...but if it help you maintain the narrative....sure.Your constant refusal to believe her...flies in the face of all I hear about believing the victim..unless of course..the 'victim' refuses to toe the line..then she's too traumatized..or whatever. I grant the woman the human right to be believed...and to be left alone.

Interesting how you pick these small lil snippets out of my post..and never really respond to the gist of what I'm saying.
Once again, not going to get drawn into the whole Kavanaugh thing. The topic here is and was the NYT's story. I'll not bother to repeat myself again. Let the crowd decide.

BTW..this is not the first time NYT has had to retract or correct a story about Kavanaugh. The New York Times issues major correction to Kavanaugh sexual assault story

One would almost think they had an agenda?

Really?

The victim denies the incident happened.

... and...

Friends say the victim can't remember the incident.

... are equivalent? And, you are trying to sell us that equivalence as "believing the victim"?

I'd agree with you that omitting the former would have been a major gaffe. Omitting the latter, hearsay, is fairly minor. And that's why I don't reply to the gist of your texts. You misstate the facts, misjudge the error, and arrive at false conclusions, with logical necessity.

And, really, the Washington Examiner? That's the odious outfit you rely on now? Read that phrase as often as necessary:

"Mr. Judge had told the Judiciary Committee that he does remember the episode and has nothing more to say, seemingly foreclosing the possibility of an additional witness interview, at least for now."

As initially stated, the phrase doesn't make any sense. It would be patently inexplicable why Mr. Judge remembering the incident would foreclose the possibility of another witness interview. And, it was online for the entire eternity of 40 minutes before it was corrected. Yep, sure, they have an agenda. That missing "not", which everyone capable of reading would have added anyway, added after 40 minutes, proves it beyond any doubt.