The past 2 weeks have provided an overwhelming number of examples of terrible journalism, but the two hit pieces from Jane Meyer and Ronan Farrow in the New Yorker have to rank near the bottom.
Given how many other journalists shared them uncritically, worth going through them.
Given how many other journalists shared them uncritically, worth going through them.
First, it’s rather obvious that these pieces were only publishes because of 1) Farrow’s reputation as a fair journalist that brings the goods (which he has sadly now destroyed) and 2) Each article essentially debunks itself (not sure why others think this is praiseworthy).
The first article brought out Debbie Ramirez’s allegation that she vaguely remembers someone flashing their penis near her face at a party in college while she was drunk. Ramirez admittedly wasn’t sure it was Kavanaugh until a few weeks ago.
Incident, which allegedly happened @ a party with several witnesses, was investigated by several outlets, but no one could find ANY corroboration for it. Only thing New Yorker cited as corroboration was an anonymous source who said he heard about it from someone else at the time.
This article from @charlescwcooke did a good job going through just how irresponsible the first New Yorker piece was: nationalreview.com/corner/on-the-…
This week Farrow and Meyer decide to publish another piece trying to attack the scope of the supplemental FBI check. They do so by highlighting that the FBI has ignored several witnesses they suggest should have been interview.
This time the article names that anonymous hearsay source who claimed he heard about Ramirez incident at the time. They spend half the article quoting him and making it seem like he, despite only having heard about it is providing solid corroboration for the Ramirez allegation.
They spend half the article quoting this "witness," only to then reveal that they had contacted the actual witness that he allegedly heard it from and that person has no idea what they are talking about.
Just insane.
Just insane.
Their own second story made their awful first story look even weaker.
Also, in case anyone doesn’t realize it, the FBI doesn’t talk to people who heard things second hand, especially when the person they claim to have heard it from has no recollection of such an incident.
Also, in case anyone doesn’t realize it, the FBI doesn’t talk to people who heard things second hand, especially when the person they claim to have heard it from has no recollection of such an incident.
The second half of the second article is even worse. They find a guy who went to HS with Brett Kavanaugh who wants to tell the FBI that he “never witnessed BK physically attack a student,” but he saw some of Brett’s friends be mean to other kids and BK never stopped it.
The New Yorker is actually arguing that the FBI should investigate alleged high school bullying and other behavior by friends of BK. Anyone with any sense would realize this is pure garbage, but the New Yorker decided to print it and countless reporters spread it uncritically.
I now see @charlescwcooke wrote up a piece about the second New Yorker one as well.
In The New Yorker, Ronan Farrow Disgraces Himself Once Again: nationalreview.com/corner/ronan-f…
In The New Yorker, Ronan Farrow Disgraces Himself Once Again: nationalreview.com/corner/ronan-f…
