New York Times Reporter Refuses To Answer Questions About Controversial Tweet

Robin Pogrebin, New York Times reporter, just gave an interview with CNN on Tuesday morning that was striking in what was not discussed. Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, who are co-authors of the new book “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation,” have have been under attack for an opinion piece that highlighted a new and salacious allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The column omitted the critical fact that the woman involved in the incident reportedly has no memory of it. Pogrebin and Kelly have stated in the last 24 hours that it was an editing error and that they originally had the information in their article. As someone who has written for various newspapers as a columnist, I am perfectly willing to believe their account. Such things happen in editing. However, I was more surprised by the refusal to answer questions this morning, including Pogrebin’s alleged authorship of a controversial tweet.

The two reporters first attempted to get their book featured on the news side of the New York Times, but the editors reportedly rejected the story. They then went to the opinion section.

The authors clearly understood that the new allegation would be explosive and that response was magnified by a tweet sent out before the column ran. On Saturday evening, the Times promoted the column with a tweet reading “Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun. But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn’t belong at Yale in the first place.”

A firestorm erupted over the language and the tweet was deleted. According to Politico, the author was culture reporter Pogrebin.

In her appearance (with Kelly) on CNN with Alisyn Camerota, Pogrebin was repeated asked a simple question. Did she author the tweet? She repeatedly refused to answer and called the question a “distraction.”

At first, Pogrebin simply said “all I can say is the tweet was written, and the tweet was sent out, and it shouldn’t have happened.” Then, when Camerota properly pressed the question, she said “I just feel it’s a distraction to try and go back over that.”

But she did not “go over that.” She has refused to go over that, including her role and why she wrote it (if she did). I can understand if she says it was bad wording, but it is a public controversy. Moreover, why is that a “distraction” as opposed to part of the story? A journalist is accused of making an insensitive and sensational public statement on a column that was later corrected for omitting material information. Her judgment is being raised in both the writing and promotion of the piece. The tweet is material to that story. Yet, when another journalist asks about her authorship, she refuses to answer. If the tweet was viewed by Pogrebin as worthy for public consideration on the story, it is hard to see how she can dismiss the authorship of that now controversial tweet to be a mere distraction. A public embarrassment may be a distraction to some but it is not generally viewed by journalists as a valid reason to refuse to answer questions.

I am more concerned about the refusal to answer than the tweet. Sometimes wording can be ill-considered. President Trump is the ultimate example of how tweets can be self-defeating and harmful. Yet, the media routinely confirms whether Trump was the author of a given tweet. It would not stand for the White House calling such information a mere “distraction.”

75 thoughts on “New York Times Reporter Refuses To Answer Questions About Controversial Tweet”

  1. I wonder what a lot of our elected officials are hiding about there past, even high school years. But most voters would still elect a candidate even though they had there faults.

  2. Robin Pogrebin also said in a CNN interview,

    “My sense is from those who know her is that she doesn’t remember it,” Pogrebin responded. “I mean, let’s remember this was a drunken party and it’s conceivable that people don’t always remember what happens in a situation like that. A lot of drunken people, you know, Brett was taken over to her by his friends. They were drunk, she was drunk. They put his penis in her hand.”

    This was after a subsequent correction to the essay clarified the victim in the alleged incident did not want to talk with the reporters and says did not remember the incident.

    Robin Pogrebin gets to misogynistically discount what a woman at the party in question said, without any evidence to support her contention that the woman didn’t remember a penis having been thrust in her hand because she was drunk.

    The law of parsimony and the Canons of Journalism both suggest Pogrebin shouldn’t have attacked the credibility of a woman who’d been there at that party without any corroborating evidence.

    The New York Times, in keeping Robin Pogrebin on its staff, has fallen from “the Gray Lady” to the Democratic Party’s call giril.

    1. loupgarous – let’s call a spade a spade. The NYT is an arm of both the DNC and the Deep State. Thank you, DJT for exposing them.

  3. The New York Times, in an act of disloyalty to the U.S. Constitution, supported the proposition that the freedom of speech be abridged. Abraham Lincoln seized power after being elected with 38.9% of the vote (Hitler won by about the same percentage) and abrogated the Constitution to “Save the Union” through the prosecution of total war with the support of the New York Times.

    New York Times
    Freedom of Speech and the Rebellion.
    Aug. 20, 1861

    “In an article which we copy this morning from the New-York Ledger, Hon. EDWARD EVERETT sets forth, in clear and strong terms, the duty of suppressing all attempts, through the Press or by speech, to aid the cause of the rebellion. He remarks upon the extraordinary spectacle of toleration exhibited by our Government in this respect. News-papers throughout the loyal States are permitted to denounce the endeavors of the Government to protect and defend its own existence. Members of Congress were allowed openly and defiantly to defend the action of those who were waging war upon the Constitution and the Union. The Government, from its regard for freedom of speech, has tolerated the open advocacy of measures which, if successful, inevitably involve its own destruction.

    Coming from so high an authority, these views cannot fail to have weight with the public at large. They are enforced with the learning and ability which Mr. EVERETT always brings to the discussion of topics of public concern. That they are just and true, no one who considers the question dispassionately can well doubt. There is. a vague notion afloat that freedom of speech carries with it some special and peculiar sanctity, — which removes it from the sphere of ordinary responsibility, and raises it at once above the law and the safety of the State. Whatever else may be assailed, under no circumstances must the freedom of speech be touched. Men may be prevented from doing a thousand things on the score of the public good: — but they must be allowed to say whatever they choose to as many persons as they please, and without the slightest responsibility for its effect on the interests of the public.

    It is not easy to see on what basis such an opinion can rest. Speaking and printing are among the most powerful weapons of modern times, and are just as efficacious for evil as for good. A newspaper in New-York can give more solid and substantial aid to the rebellion, and inflict more serious damage on the Government, than half-a-dozen regiments of armed foes. Those journals which are constantly engaged in denouncing the efforts of the Government to put down rebellion, — which excite distrust and discontent in the public mind, — destroying the confidence of the people, discouraging enlistments, weakening the credit of the Government, and creating the impression that it is waging an unjust and unholy war, do infinitely more toward aiding the rebellion than they could possibly do with arms in their hands, fighting in the rebel ranks. Why, then, should they not be held to the same responsibility? Why should they be allowed to wage war with impunity in one way, while they would be hung as traitors if they were to do it in another way not one whit more effective? When a man takes sides with the enemies of his country, his guilt does not depend on the mode, but on the fact, of his support. His speaking, or writing, or printing, may be as dangerous and as treasonable as any other mode of action.

    It seems to us that Mr. EVERETT’s position on this subject is clearly just, — and that Editors of newspapers should be allowed no more impunity than is accorded to any other men in assailing the existence of their Government and giving aid and comfort to its enemies. Speech should only be free when it is loyal. Like every other act, whenever it becomes dangerous to the public welfare, it should be punished and prevented. The law can no more allow speech to be absolutely and unconditionally free, without regard to the circumstances or exigencies of the country, than it can grant similar freedom to any other form of activity. Whenever the Press becomes dangerous to the existence of the Government, it must be checked by the law. Of course we have not a word to say in support, or in excuse, cuse, of the mobs which have attempted to regulate the Press in any part of the country. Remedies of this kind are worse than the disease. The misconduct, of the Press, like that of individuals, must only be punished by due course of law.”

  4. I find all of the high minded moralizing a bit humorous. Let’s be completely honest. Most leftists don’t really care if Kavanagh actually did any of the things he is accused of or not. They are much more concerned about how they think he might rule on the issues they care about.

    If Kavanagh were a leftist and conservatives presented accusations about misbehavior (credible or not), leftists would try find a way around it. Kind of like lefties always making excuses for that great protector of women named Edward Moore Kennedy. They could care less about Mary Jo, Chappaquiddick or his other activities. They simply liked his politics. Same with Martin Luther King. They agreed with his politics and could care less about the plagiarism, womanizing or sexually assault of women. Most of which were undisputed. No high mindedness for lefties concerning any of these folks.

    Kind of akin to coming to a conclusion and working backwards to justify it.

    Didn’t Comrade Lenin say something to the effect that to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs?


  5. There are professional standards in engineering, architecture, and other professions where practitioners can’t ignore physical laws and just “wing it.” Standards are even more important in professions where members can make it up without direct, immediate feedback and consequences. Unfortunately, news organizations increasingly behave without regard to professional or ethical standards. That should concern us all.

    1. Osmar, you said just “wing it”

      Years ago I worked on the trident missile that can carry 6 H-bombs. Now the missile can carry 12 H-bombs. Iran can be vaporized into total oblivion!

    2. The Canons of Journalism are precisely those standards you’re talking about., They are routinely fliouted by Big Journalism.

      If Big News actually lived by the Canons of Journalism, they’d have so much more impact on the public than they do now, with their slanted advocacy reporting.

  6. NY TIMES goes back to the days of Tammany Hall and Yellow Journalism. They have never attempted to associate themselves with ‘truth’ unless it spelled правда. Not more than a decade or so ago they had one writer who submitted stories from his apartment having never left it. It works good for starting fires but otherwise has no use other than replacing sears-roebuck in the outhouse.


    1. And yet you, the Trump administration, and the opinion writers who confirm your fantasies read it daily to know WTF is happening.

  7. What is this really all about? Within about one year there’s at least a reasonable chance RBG’s seat shall be vacant.

    The sum total point of this current Dem/MSM travesty is to warn any potential Trump-picked SCOTUS nominee that the Dem/MSM shall positively do everything legal and illegal possible to emotionally and spiritually disembowel both the nominee and every member of their family and friend/support circle.

  8. American publishers and Hollywood have perpetuated pure fiction for millennia.

    The MSM and communists (i.e. liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats) in America are doing the same.

    Freedom of speech means disreputable, despicable, jealous and covetous feminazis and communists may fabricate and perjure with impunity to their heart’s content.

    The only defense is litigation by damaged parties such as Brent Kavanaugh.

  9. Taking sides will just drag you further away from critical thinking and honest assessment.

    The Dems are engaged in ad-hominem political assassination using quasi-judicial tactics.

    Brett Kavanaugh was an avid binge-drinking partier in his late teens.

    He shaped-up and became an outstanding jurist.

    Binge-drinking brings out unpredictable, obnoxious behaviors that participants would be ashamed of — or in denial about — after sobering up. Kids who drink to oblivion need to be gently reminded that, should something go criminally wrong while stupor drunk, they won’t be able to serve as a reliable witness.

    That said, a “failure to corroborate” due to alcohol memory blackout is a weak defense – it should never be equated with the lack of corroboration offered by a sober witness. This is the game the right is using at this point to attack the NYT and defend Justice K as innocent.

    Everyone should avoid the innate tendency to give up critical thinking and join your preference of mob. It’s our republic, if we can keep it.

    1. This is the game the right is using at this point to attack the NYT and defend Justice K as innocent. Everyone should avoid the innate tendency to give up critical thinking and join your preference of mob.

      You gave up. Your tell was to claim defending someone’s presumption of innocence against uncorroborated allegations is evidence of an attack. Your mob appreciates your support.

Comments are closed.