New Yorker journalist further demonstrates why you should ignore its reporting on second Kavanaugh accuser washex.am/2N2LCDN
First, what does “award-winning history professor” have to do with anything? Have you ever seen a more desperate appeal to authority? I wasn’t ready to take Kantrowitz at his word, but now that you mention he is an award-winning history professor, well, that changes everything!
Second, Mayer could’ve taken all of two minutes to Google Kantrowitz’s position on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Had she done this, she would’ve found he’s about as partisan as they come.
If her intention is to vindicate her slipshod coverage of the Kavanaugh allegations, leaning on a decidedly partisan activist is a funny way to do it.
“Whatever the facts behind these accusations of sexual assault, his persistent dissembling about his past character — his unwillingness or inability to admit any personal foible or flaw — should disqualify him from the Court,” Kantrowitz tweeted on Sept. 24.
Saying you didn't sexually assault anyone, EVER, is not an inability to admit any personal foible, Kantrowitz, you jackass.
But Kantrowitz's opinion is perfectly objective because he is an award-winning history professor.
Some journalists have cried foul this week that Ronan Farrow has been given almost all credit for producing the New Yorker article alleging the 2nd incident of sexual abuse by Kavanaugh. They’ve complained that it’s unfair (and maybe sexist) that Mayer has gone largely uncredited
They make a great point. @JaneMayerNYer deserves just as much blame for the decision to publish something the New York Times rightly wouldn't touch.
