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.”
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…Published in