Thread by @FliedGaff

I feel like not enough attention has been paid to Rich McHugh, an “investigative journalist” who is working on the Tara Reade story.

All the other reporters touching the story have been, fairly and unfairly, scrutinized.

It is clear that Rich, like others, has an agenda. For example, Rich goes out of his way to tweet on April 21 that Reade’s allegation against Biden is an “ongoing investigation.”

He never tweets that the investigation in no longer ongoing (he does update his story though)

Rich tweeted that files pertaining to Tara are not in the National Archives, but are in the Office of Fair Employment Practices

He never says that Biden has acknowledged that the files are not in the archives and asked the Senate to release all relevant files they may have

In the Linda LaCasse story, Rich omits key phrases that Linda said, such that Linda “forgot” about the Biden story until Tara told her. He frames it in the story as if Linda remembered it herself.

He does include it in the full interview hidden behind a paywall

Rich, to my understanding, never acknowledges that LaCasse says that Biden “sounded believable” in his denial and that she is struggling with the story now.

Rich has called LaCasse “entirely credible”.

In an May 1 interview with Democracy Now, Rich says: “when she (Tara)…when I found Linda…”

Tara put Linda in contact with Rich, but why is he trying to act like *he* found her? Does it raise credibility issues of the corroborating witness?

Moreover, the tweets that Rich likes are far from impartial. Someone coming from a neutral place wouldn’t be actively “liking” tweets defending Tara.

Your job as an journalist is not run pr for the story you’re working on.

Rich McHugh has an agenda. That’s fine. That doesn’t make him a bad journalist, nor does that mean the things he’s reporting are inherently wrong.

However, when reading reporting done by him in this case, that bias and agenda should be noted.