,
4 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The Ramirez/Kavanaugh story completely fell apart under scrutiny and the reporters who wrote it despite embarrassing sourcing took major reputations hits.
That it still somehow found it’s way into a book with even the slightest editing and scrutiny is shocking.
That it still somehow found it’s way into a book with even the slightest editing and scrutiny is shocking.
Flashback: here are some reasons why it fell apart.
It took 6 days of coaching with a Democratic lawyer for Ramirez to come up with the story the New Yorker ran. Imagine what they can come up with for a book they’ve worked on for a year.
It took 6 days of coaching with a Democratic lawyer for Ramirez to come up with the story the New Yorker ran. Imagine what they can come up with for a book they’ve worked on for a year.
The FBI talked to Ramirez, followed what they could find credible, but likely found what Ronan Farrow found— one of the main pushers of Ramirez’s story had only ever heard it secondhand... from someone who has no memory of it.
Nonsensical hearsay.
newyorker.com/news/news-desk…
Nonsensical hearsay.
newyorker.com/news/news-desk…
Just like 1 year ago, lots of misuse of “corroboration” on twitter.
“2 people heard about something secondhand from someone with no memory of it” is NOT corroboration.
“5 more people heard second-hand about an event in subsequent years— but no details” also not corroboration.
“2 people heard about something secondhand from someone with no memory of it” is NOT corroboration.
“5 more people heard second-hand about an event in subsequent years— but no details” also not corroboration.
