Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. The Faking Faker’s Faking Faked


You’ve all heard the old line where the “f” word is used as an adjective/noun/verb by a grizzled combat soldier as in ” The [redacted]ing [redacted]’er’s [redacted]’ing [redacted]’d”, right?

This flitted back to mind as I mused on a recent incident while at a conference last week. I was sitting in a room full of people representing various publications in the US, the UK and on the Continent of Europe, when one of the participants asked where they could turn for credible news, mentioning that he was uncertain whether Breitbart News was a trustworthy source. I thought, “Yeah, compared to what? The New York Times?” But I kept my trap shut.

Then, RIGHT ON CUE, along comes the latest preposterous story on U. S. Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh. A story, by the way, rejected by the Washington Post a year ago, rejected even by the NYT news section and thus run in the NYT Opinion section. From The Federalist, September 17, 2019:

“After The New York Times published an article reporting a new alleged incident of sexual assault involving Kavanaugh on Sunday, Hemingway broke the news that the reporters failed to include a crucial detail tucked at the end of their forthcoming book that invalidates the allegation the Times published. After Hemingway pointed this glaring omission, The New York Times issued an editor’s note with a correction.”

What was that “crucial detail”? The alleged”assaultee” told her friends she didn’t remember the incident. Again from The Federalist:

“They claimed it was a new allegation. It turns out it’s not new, and it’s not even an allegation, and that what they put in the New York Times story, they didn’t mention that the alleged victim herself said she has no recollection of this incident,” Hemingway said. “That is journalistic malpractice.”

Mollie Hemingway

Which prompted the following to flit into the old inferior frontal gyrus, or the old noggin, whichever you prefer:

”The faking faker’s faking faked!” Obviously, I’m speaking of the New York Times.

Now, returning to the trustworthiness of Breitbart

There are 6 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member

    Melissa O'Sullivan: “The faking faker’s faking faked!” Obviously, I’m speaking of the New York Times.

    Those cats are just bad news.

    • #1
    • September 17, 2019, at 10:13 PM PDT
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    • #2
    • September 17, 2019, at 10:22 PM PDT
  3. Richard Easton Member

    More seriously, my wife worked 20 years ago at WBEZ in Chicago. She was a conservative working at a very liberal public radio station. They hired from NYC a morning editor. When reporters came back with stories which did not fit into her liberal worldview, she’d ask them to do more digging. An echo chamber, where far left views are considered mainstream, leads to a lack of balance and skepticism about absurd stories such as the one the NYT just published about Kavanaugh.

    • #3
    • September 17, 2019, at 10:41 PM PDT
  4. Rodin Member

    The New York Times: It is fake news that they publish news.

    • #4
    • September 17, 2019, at 10:52 PM PDT
  5. ShaunaHunt Coolidge

    Rodin (View Comment):

    The New York Times: It is fake news that they publish news.


    • #5
    • September 17, 2019, at 11:09 PM PDT
  6. RightAngles Member

    As a friend of Rush’s said, “Imagine a story so shoddy and suspect that even the Washington Post wouldn’t touch it.”

    • #6
    • September 18, 2019, at 6:43 AM PDT

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.