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. they mislead listeners that a new kavanaugh accuser had come forth. that is a falsehood.

        the story was based on pure gossip. when asked the lady in question said she had no recollection of the story.

        total junk and NPR wow very disappointing. my how they have slid in quality the past few years. i have been a regular listener for decades.

        1. Mr Kurtz – I have liberal friends who buy me a yearly subscription to the New York Times (which I do not read, how my wife does) and I gave up on NPR when Click and Clack decided they were going to get political. We have a public classical FM station that I listen to which does not have news, just good classical music.

          1. it’s car listening for me usually. i like talk and there are no commercial except for the fundraising intervals. late i can get bbc on same channel which is far better. NPR is like reading Izvhestia in the old days of the USSR. You gotta know what the “in crowd” aka nomenklatura is saying to each other however preposterous

        2. kurtz, the incident was reported by a credible source with something to lose to a US Senator. It was confirmed by other classmates. It’s an accusation, not a proven fact, but neither is it a lie.

          Got anything else?

            1. “In Washington, D.C., Max Stier, the president and CEO of the Partnership for Public Service, a not-for-profit nonpartisan organization aimed at improving the way the federal government works, has long been a well-known name in political circles.

              Stier has long worked “on both sides of the aisle,” with the non-profit CEO’s partnership having even worked with both the Clinton and Trump campaigns in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election…”

              https://www.newsweek.com/max-stier-brett-kavanaugh-allegations-yale-university-1459373

              “…He has a B.A. from Yale University and a J.D. from Stanford University.

              In 1982, he worked on the staff of Republican Congressman Jim Leach; in 1992, he clerked for Chief Judge James L. Oakes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; and in 1994, he served as a clerk for Justice David Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court.[2] In 1995, Stier joined the Washington D.C. firm of Williams & Connolly where he was part of President Bill Clinton’s defense team during the 1998 Monica Lewinsky scandal.[2] Stier was always concerned with the quality of government workers and was able to convince hedge fund manager Samuel Heyman to contribute $25 million to start up a non-for-profit dedicated to attracting qualified young people to government service, the Partnership for Public Service.[3]….

              In 2005, the Partnership merged with the Private Sector Council—an organization founded by David Packard in 1983, which engages the expertise of the private sector to improve the business of government by connecting experts from America’s top corporations with federal leaders….”

              David Packard was Nixon’s Deputy Secretary of Defense.

              From Wikipedia

                1. Yes, and no doubt Stier would risk his successful career as a non-partisan resource in Washington to even a score over a dead case the firm he worked for for 2 years did 21 years ago.

                  Paul knows all the conspiracies. Can’t fool him.

            1. basically they say kavanaugh waved his peen at a girl’s face during a party.

              the girl now a woman says she doesnt remember that.

              so the gossip is about on level with a story from the locker room from 30 years ago

              sad that the NYT even with its propagandistic bent would stoop to such a lame fake story

              1. No, kurtz, you wish it was, but it’s being reported by a respectable citizen with something to lose, and dovetails with Deborah Ramirez’s experience which was confirmed then and now by others.

            2. No, that’s not logically a lie nor is the victim’s confirmation the “key point”, though it’s an important point. She could have been too drunk, wants to avoid the spotlight, or for some reason is loyal to the alleged perp.

        3. If memory serves, the focus of the story was on Ramirez and the fact that none of the 25 witnesses she identified were interviewed and that the FBI failed to interview some of those witnesses that had tried to contact them directly but the FBI wouldn’t talk to them because it was outside the scope of their direction from the White House. NPR also said there was a new second allegation and did have the caveat that the friends of the second woman said she has no recollection of the event.
          There was a second allegation, I can think of four main possibilities regarding her friends saying she had no recollection; different than saying it never happened:
          1. It never happened
          2. It happened and she forgot
          3. It happened and she has no desire to be thrust into the spotlight and have her name dragged through the mud.
          4. It happened but she thinks it was no big deal, or Kavanaugh has changed, or she thinks he and his family have been through enough.

          Geraldo Rivera among others makes the case that none of us are without sin and it’s likely that Kavanaugh is a much different man by all accounts and a 40-year-old transgression shouldn’t drag him down. One could try to make that case but that’s not what Kavanaugh did. If the Ramirez case did happen, and it appears there are several witnesses who were ready and willing to attest to it. Kavanaugh would have perjured himself in his Senate testimony in 2018 which is not some long-ago offense. It would mean he was willing to say and do anything to get the job including destroying the women who came forward to testify against him. It also says something about the White House who dictated the result based on the investigation limitations and the Senate members who put politics above any concern for truth and justice.

          Clarence Thomas benefitted from a process where Joe Biden refused to call Anita Hill’s witnesses that could have confirmed part of her testimony. Maybe he and Kavanaugh can start a club of those whose names will never be free of the allegations against them precisely because the investigations themselves were tarnished?

          1. Your recollection and summary is accurate Enigma.

            I don’t know if Kavanaugh did what he is accused of and neither do the posters here claiming he was proven innocent. He did lie about what he was like in high school and an admission of that with regrets would have drawn more sympathy for him, though maybe not enough. He and his team decided the charges were an existential threat to his future and scorched earth was the only way to go. Conservatives believed him because – like Trump – they have to, they’re in too deep. Nothing will come of the new charges and he’ll stay on the court until he dies or grows too old.

            1. I disagree slightly because I don’t think they actually believe Kavanaugh, just like they know Trump lies all the time. They don’t care, and will destroy anyone in their path to get the desired result.

                  1. You’re talking about the politicians I guess and I agree. I was talking about Trumpsters like most of the posters here. I think they really bought this and are in too deep now. What an admission that would be.

    1. Kurtz

      The NYT and the DNC have never known a lie too good to ignore.
      Telling the truth would not get them elected as dog catcher

  1. The Assault on the Supreme Court

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-assault-on-the-supreme-court-11568674522

    “This campaign is led by the power center of the Democratic Party, including Members of the Judiciary Committee such as Ms. Harris who vet judicial nominations. Their attack on a core democratic institution is exactly what they claim President Trump is doing, but Mr. Trump is mostly bluster.

    This assault on the judiciary is being carried out with conviction and malice, as the character assassination against Justice Kavanaugh shows. One motivation is that everything on the left’s new agenda, from the Green New Deal to a wealth tax, depends on favorable court rulings. The left is used to running the nation’s law schools and controlling the courts.

    But the Senate has confirmed more than 150 judicial nominees since President Trump took office. And progressives would now rather attempt a hostile takeover of Article III courts than wait to win the old-fashioned way: at the ballot box.

    The partisan relitigation of Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation is an embarrassment to the country, but it is useful in putting the 2020 election stakes in sharp relief. The future of the Supreme Court is on the ballot in Senate races as much as in the presidential race.”

    1. this morning i was listening to Kilmeade on radio. some guy said “conservatives dont do this” yes they don’t. and they keep losing. maybe they need to step up with a more aggressive form of social pressure tactics like doxxing aimed at leftist hooligans and troublemakers. and annoying complaints etc. the usual leftist tactics. why not use the tools at hand?

      also he says “democrats see groups republicans see individuals.” yes i have been saying that a long time and it’s time for the STUPID republicans to stop seeing all these individuals which is inefficient way to proceed and start seeing and responding to GROUPS. GROUPS make things happen not atomized people. build community and yes sometimes you have to attack other communities. its all about groups like it or not

  2. The DNC mantra 48 hours ago was impeachment for Justice Kavanaugh due to perjury. Now that the NYT has been caught lying yet again can Justice Kavanaugh sue NYT for libel and the DNC for defamation ?

    1. Ikierkan – I know that Justice Thomas wants to take another look at Sullivan. Having Kavanaugh sue would be perfect. 😉

  3. These aren’t new and salacious allegations – that gives them credibilty. THEY ARE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED SMEARS AND LIES. Unfortunately the NYT has turned into a rag, not worthy to be used as TP. Again – it’s time to call out this type of behavior with blunt and decisive derision. Stop giving these liars any excuses to continue to harm innocent men, women and their children.

  4. I think I see another Rolling Stone/UVA fiasco brewing at the Gray Old Lady. Bring on the lawyers. It’s the only thing that brings these frauds to heel. Anybody seen anything written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely lately? Nope, not a syllable. Lady Justice may be as blind as a hag-fish, but she is a literarian.

    1. She quit Tweeting in 2014. Her Wiki page refers to no articles published after 2014, either. And that’s entirely fair.

  5. So we are back to recycling the Michael Avenatti Yale University party stories

    The gang rapes, women who don’t remember how they got there or how they left.

    But Brett was running around with his pants pulled down to his ankles.

  6. Keep in mind, a pair of employees of the media wing of the Democratic Party (one of whom is 54 years old – the Millennials don’t get stuck with the bill for her stupidities) are fussing over lightly sourced stories which (if believed) indicate that BK did something raunchy at a liquid college party 35 years ago.

    (If he’d done something minor like leave a woman to suffocate trapped in a car at the bottom of a creek, we’d be calling him the Lion of the DC Circuit (were he a Democrat))

  7. I saw two dogs on TV last night who claimed to be these two authors. I think that they were fake. Fake News. All the news that’s fit to print. NY Times: all the news that’s fit to stink. The victim cannot recall.
    Kavanaugh should sue these to liars. Their pants are on fire.

  8. I thought I recognized that name. Her mother is Letty Cottin Pogrebin, one of the more capable and less unpleasant among the crew assembled by Gloria Steinem at Ms. magazine.

  9. The tweet stuff is trivial. The real story is that the initially the NYTimes did not report that the women declined to be interviewed and that her friends say that she did not recall the incident. These are key factors that the NYTimes failed to mention. This error was picked up The Federalist when they reviewed an advance copy of the book and tweeted the omission which prompted others to jump on the issue. Then the NYTimes corrected their article. Importantly, if The Federalist had not brought this to the attention of the public the correction the NYTimes probably would not have corrected the article. As with other MSM missteps the question is was this sloppy reporting or bias.

  10. An editorial slip up? Talk about CYA, Turley. when Joe Scarborough calls you out for shoddy journalism you have a big problem.

  11. Relax everyone – this is a Trumpian plot. Americans will be so annoyed and upset with this new accusation and its falseness that they will turn out in droves to vote out the Democrats. People are that disgusted, as we saw in the aftermath of Kavanaugh I, with the lying and stupidity of Avenatti et al.
    This HAS to be the answer. The democrats aren’t really this stupid for real, are they?

  12. Being a good leftist means never having to say you’re sorry…or answer for your actions. After all you’re fighting for a “better world”. And what could be more wonderful than that?

    In fact, we would already be there if not for those awful wreckers and saboteurs who supported Donald Trump and the NRA.

    That’s why liberals of any stripe refuse to condemn anyone left of center, even members of the glorious antifa.

    antonio

  13. One of the 2,000 comments on the NY Times article (giving the authors an F in journalism and pointing out that and other omissions) was mine.

    Unfortunately, the Times has hired a slew of Millennial editors, some with a history of anti-white tweets, that bring with them the “new journalism” (meaning, stopping Trump justifies breaking all rules of journalism).

    The Times in all stories that directly or tangentially implicate politics is now “opposition” not journalism.

    During Clinton’s war in Kosovo my Greek sister in law sent us Greek news clippings as support for us resisting the US involvement in the conflict, claiming that the only reason that our Airforce and Navy piolet’s agreed to fly bombing sorties was that they were “promised they would pay no income taxes for the rest of their lives”!

    I recall thinking “thank God we live in a country where press coverage is free of political influences”.

    Not true any more.

  14. It was NOT a NEW allegation. It was just a totally fake news smear job:

    “CBS Exposes a Corrupt New York Times Smear
    DB Daily Update David Blackmon

    Today’s Campaign Update (Because The Campaign Never Ends) That thing that happens when not everyone is down with the latest smear effort. – The newsfakers at the New York Times made big news of their own on Monday when they were forced by actual journalists to issue a correction to their latest smear story targeting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

    This latest story was penned by two Times fake reporters who have a new book out. Oh, joy! The book rehashes old accusations against Kavanaugh brought forward and rejected as baseless last year, while pretending to add new meat to the bone to one accuser who supposedly claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party. The fake authors claim in the book to have found 7 “witnesses” who supposedly remember the incident.

    Big problem: Not a single one of those seven “witnesses” make any claim to have actually witnessed anything. Only one of them was actually at the party in question and has no specific memory of Kavanaugh being involved in any exposing of anything other than a beer cup. None of the other six were even at the party. Oh.

    The fake reporters naturally saved those bits of key information for very late in the book and made no mention of them in the story they penned for the oh-so accommodating pages of their employer’s fake newspaper. But actual journalists at other media outlets, including Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist, exposed all of this and much more over the weekend, creating a huge blowback towards the Times and its fake reporters and forcing the Times to issue a correction to the story.

    This smear effort was so transparent and corrupt that it even had Brit Hume, who has stubbornly avoided calling his colleagues corrupt all these years, finally giving in to unavoidable reality:

    Brit Hume ✔ @brithume This smear was disgusting the first time around. This attempt to revive it is beyond disgusting and speaks to the dishonesty of leading organs of the mainstream media. They are corrupt. https://spectator.us/brett-kavanaugh-debbie-ramirez-character/

    A fresh assassination of Brett Kavanaugh’s character | Spectator USA God bless Brett Kavanaugh. And shame, shame on The New York Times and its sweaty minions for abetting the revival of this grotesque calumny

    But by the time the “correction” was issued, the intended damage to Justice Kavanaugh had already been done, which was the plan all along. For every 100 people who read or heard about the original story, you might have five who read or heard about the correction. This is how our fake news media does these smear campaigns, of course.

    Normally, everyone else in the fake news media is fully on-board with smears led by the Times, and never make any effort to inform their readers/viewers of the journalistic mendacity being practiced by the fake newspaper of record. Last night, Jan Crawford at CBS News had apparently had enough of this nonsense.

    Crawford, in a report aired on the CBS Evening News, reported on the Times’s correction, and went even further, noting the following:

    Jan Crawford ✔ @JanCBS We report tonight the real bombshell: Christine Ford’s close HS friend (who Ford says was at the party when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her) said Ford’s story is not believable and told the FBI Ford’s allies pressured her, threatened her with a smear campaign to say otherwise https://twitter.com/cbseveningnews/status/1173729651199549446

    Oh. Gosh, that’s kind of important information, too, isn’t it? This bit of explosive, real news also gets passing mention in the book by the fake Times reporters, but was naturally excluded from their piece in the Times. The news about Leland Keyser putting the lie to Blasey Ford’s original put-up smear is, in fact, the only real “news” contained in the book at all.

    So, here we have the anatomy of the classic fake news media smear as led by the New York Times.

    – When you first massive effort to smear the subject during his nominating process failed to bring its desired result, have two of your fakest reporters collaborate on a book that rehashes the original smears but supplements them with “new” information that isn’t new at all.

    – When they stumble across one bit of actual real news that would be bombshell evidence of the subject’s actual innocence relate to the original smear, bury it in the book and hope no one actually reads it.

    – Then have your fake reporters pen a story for your newspaper and make sure they don’t mention the real news in it and exclude key facts that would also serve to exonerate the subject.

    – Take that story to print, and when you get caught excluding the key information, wait at least 48 hours before issuing a half-assed “correction” that no one will read.

    As long as everyone else in the fake news media is on-board with the new smear effort, you’re golden. Conservative outlets like the Federalist and Fox News don’t matter because your own readers/viewers will just dismiss them out of hand.

    Foolproof, right? And CBS news, whose own “news” division is mostly just a bunch of toadies who do little but parrot DNC talking points and rehash stories printed by the Times and the Washington Post each day, is basically the last competing outlet you’d expect to give up the ghost.

    But there’s Jan Crawford, bringing the Times’s fake chickens home to roost. Who know why? Maybe Times Editor Dean Baquet pissed somebody off.

    Regardless, good for Ms. Crawford for her decision to be a real journalist, at least for one day. I bet it fells good for her to be reporting the truth for a change.

    The Democrat/media propaganda complex is going to need a new smear.

    That is all.”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Add this to people’s concerns about fake news–deepfakes.

      “’It’s hard to imagine a technology with more power to disrupt. I’m already in the position (as many of you soon will be as well) where anyone can produce a believable audio and perhaps video of me saying absolutely anything they want me to say. How can that possibly be fought? More to the point: how are we going to trust anything electronically mediated in the very near future (say, during the next presidential election)? We’re already concerned, rightly or wrongly, with “fake news” — and that’s only news that has been slanted, arguably, by the bias of the reporter or editor or news organization. What do we do when “fake news” is just as real as “real news”? What do we do when anyone can imitate anyone else, for any reason that suits them?

      And what of the legality of this process? It seems to me that active and aware lawmakers would take immediate steps to make the unauthorized production of AI deepfakes a felony offence, at least in the case where the fake is being used to defame, damage or deceive. And it seems to be that we should perhaps throw caution to the wind, and make this an exceptionally wide-ranging law. We need to seriously consider the idea that someone’s voice is an integral part of their identity, of their reality, of their person — and that stealing that voice is a genuinely criminal act, regardless (perhaps) of intent.”

      https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-deep-fake#comments-area

      1. We need to seriously consider the idea that someone’s voice is an integral part of their identity, of their reality, of their person — and that stealing that voice is a genuinely criminal act, regardless (perhaps) of intent.

        Prairie Rose,
        The maximum penalty for the federal crime of identity theft is 15 years. That is far too low.

        1. Olly,
          Identity theft typically is aimed at monetary gain, at least as I perceive it. This new angle of manipulating reality and perception to hurt someone’s reputation or job prospects, potentially (or worse). It definitely deserves greater punishment. It leans towards assault rather than theft.

      2. deep fakes violate the right of publicity for sure
        they can probably get knocked offline by DMCA existing procedures
        the problem is they’re like mushrooms and can pop up fast again

        it should be illegal but right now they can’t even stop scammers from calling elderly people about their ssns, taxes, back braces, medical supplies, etc. old people with landlines are getting flooded with these calls and the government seems powerless.

        they passed out a few millions in fines which was a start. but what the FBI needs to do is start busting up these crime fraud rings and locking them up.

        technology is unleashing anarchy. ready or not?

      1. Randy – someone with Nexus/Lexus can check this one but some court has decided that taking the 5th is an admission of guilt.

    1. Or no comment means the comment and who wrote it aren’t the story so I don’t want to start a witch hunt for who wrote it.

    2. The people who actually knew Christine Blasey Ford in 1982 may be fond of her after a fashion, but unwilling to lie for her and disinclined to put themselves in the crosshairs. We have reason to believe that might include all of her 1st, 2d, and 3d degree relatives. SMDH

  15. Actually, it was NOT a new allegation. Here is a good analysis of what happened:

    “This latest story was penned by two Times fake reporters who have a new book out. Oh, joy! The book rehashes old accusations against Kavanaugh brought forward and rejected as baseless last year, while pretending to add new meat to the bone to one accuser who supposedly claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party. The fake authors claim in the book to have found 7 “witnesses” who supposedly remember the incident.

    Big problem: Not a single one of those seven “witnesses” make any claim to have actually witnessed anything. Only one of them was actually at the party in question and has no specific memory of Kavanaugh being involved in any exposing of anything other than a beer cup. None of the other six were even at the party. Oh.

    The fake reporters naturally saved those bits of key information for very late in the book and made no mention of them in the story they penned for the oh-so accommodating pages of their employer’s fake newspaper. But actual journalists at other media outlets, including Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist, exposed all of this and much more over the weekend, creating a huge blowback towards the Times and its fake reporters and forcing the Times to issue a correction to the story.

    This smear effort was so transparent and corrupt that it even had Brit Hume, who has stubbornly avoided calling his colleagues corrupt all these years, finally giving in to unavoidable reality:

    Brit Hume ✔ @brithume This smear was disgusting the first time around. This attempt to revive it is beyond disgusting and speaks to the dishonesty of leading organs of the mainstream media. They are corrupt. https://spectator.us/brett-kavanaugh-debbie-ramirez-character/

    A fresh assassination of Brett Kavanaugh’s character | Spectator USA God bless Brett Kavanaugh. And shame, shame on The New York Times and its sweaty minions for abetting the revival of this grotesque calumny

    But by the time the “correction” was issued, the intended damage to Justice Kavanaugh had already been done, which was the plan all along. For every 100 people who read or heard about the original story, you might have five who read or heard about the correction. This is how our fake news media does these smear campaigns, of course.

    Normally, everyone else in the fake news media is fully on-board with smears led by the Times, and never make any effort to inform their readers/viewers of the journalistic mendacity being practiced by the fake newspaper of record. Last night, Jan Crawford at CBS News had apparently had enough of this nonsense.

    Crawford, in a report aired on the CBS Evening News, reported on the Times’s correction, and went even further, noting the following:

    Jan Crawford ✔ @JanCBS We report tonight the real bombshell: Christine Ford’s close HS friend (who Ford says was at the party when Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her) said Ford’s story is not believable and told the FBI Ford’s allies pressured her, threatened her with a smear campaign to say otherwise https://twitter.com/cbseveningnews/status/1173729651199549446

    Oh. Gosh, that’s kind of important information, too, isn’t it? This bit of explosive, real news also gets passing mention in the book by the fake Times reporters, but was naturally excluded from their piece in the Times. The news about Leland Keyser putting the lie to Blasey Ford’s original put-up smear is, in fact, the only real “news” contained in the book at all.

    So, here we have the anatomy of the classic fake news media smear as led by the New York Times.

    – When you first massive effort to smear the subject during his nominating process failed to bring its desired result, have two of your fakest reporters collaborate on a book that rehashes the original smears but supplements them with “new” information that isn’t new at all.

    – When they stumble across one bit of actual real news that would be bombshell evidence of the subject’s actual innocence relate to the original smear, bury it in the book and hope no one actually reads it.

    – Then have your fake reporters pen a story for your newspaper and make sure they don’t mention the real news in it and exclude key facts that would also serve to exonerate the subject.

    – Take that story to print, and when you get caught excluding the key information, wait at least 48 hours before issuing a half-assed “correction” that no one will read.

    As long as everyone else in the fake news media is on-board with the new smear effort, you’re golden. Conservative outlets like the Federalist and Fox News don’t matter because your own readers/viewers will just dismiss them out of hand.

    dbdailyupdate.com/index.php/2019/09/17/cbs-exposes-a-corrupt-new-york-times-smear/

    There is more at the link.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

Leave a Reply