As Twitchy reported Sunday, The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway was spending the day reading the new book on the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and “actually kind of enjoying how bad” it was. We already know that the adaptation of the book published by The New York Times left out the tidbit that the women supposedly sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh in college didn’t recall the incident, and now Hemingway is fact-checking The Atlantic’s take on the Kavanaugh smear.
Guess who caught the New York Times' Kavanaugh authors in another huge error? This time in the Atlantic. "Witnesses Defended Kavanaugh. NYT Authors Falsely Claimed Silence" https://t.co/keStoBFRuD
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 17, 2019
She writes at The Federalist:
A new Atlantic-published, adapted excerpt of the book attempts to resurrect Pogrebin and Kelly’s anti-Kavanaugh smears but once again has a major error. “We Spent 10 Months Investigating Kavanaugh. Here’s What We Found” was published in the Atlantic.
Their reporting must not have been thorough. In a section explaining why they believe the accusers despite the lack of any evidence, they write that their emotional reaction to the claims was that the claims rang true. But they get major facts wrong….
It is not true that the alleged witnesses kept mum. This is another major error by The New York Times reporters.
Hemingway says she’ll update The Federalist piece once The Atlantic corrects this latest error.
Good grief. Is there no end to this shoddy reporting? https://t.co/0ElPBcmAMz
— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 17, 2019
Not shoddy reporting. Purposeful smear job.
— RCarls (@RCarls1) September 17, 2019
At some point a rational observer would have to reject "shoddy" in favor of the more accurate "corrupt"
— Every Doggo Knows (@EveryDoggoKnows) September 17, 2019
You say shoddy reporting, I say partisan hacks.
— Aviva (@avivalev) September 17, 2019
When did you see reporting from them that was NOT shoddy?
— GlenninVirginia (@GlenninVirginia) September 17, 2019
Can we stop calling them "journalists" and "reporters"? How about "media activists"?
— Sam in LA (@Sam42199640) September 17, 2019
It’s purposely deceptive.
Labeling it as just “shoddy” gives the @nytimes an out as “mistakes were made.”
No mistakes were made. They omitted & lied on purpose. It is who they are.. just the propaganda department of the @TheDemocrats
— ??John ?? (@DaBearsk35) September 17, 2019
IMO, this is not shoddy reporting. This is an intentional attempt to manipulate the voting public with scurrilous lies. But I think it is backfiring.
— Susan F (@SMF904) September 17, 2019
It’s not shoddy reporting. It’s Democratic activists doing what they do.
— Len Redfern (@len_redfern) September 17, 2019
This has become a plague! We have always relied on the media, since our Republic was formed, to be a watchdog of the checks and balances. This reporting, this fiction, this distortion of reality is a loss for all of us. It is the death of our safety net.
— Julie Colin (@JulieColin) September 17, 2019
It's not even reporting. All the people who worked so hard for NYT reputation had it all get ruined. And for what?
— thomas gilson jr (@tommygi80) September 17, 2019
Is it surprising, Brit? When you are trying to prop up a completely ridiculous national narrative, how could there be anything but egregious and corrupt journalism in play.
— Tim Tedesco (@TimTedesco135) September 18, 2019
Let’s be honest, it’s far more than shoddy reporting.
— Robert DePree (@rightly) September 18, 2019
It’s not reporting. It’s full on propaganda
— Susan Metz (@Susan_Metz) September 18, 2019
It's not shoddy reporting, it's a designed plan even if a few reporters lose a little credibility.
— Jerry Vis (@quietsolopursui) September 17, 2019
You misspelled "malicious propaganda"
— Jake Lee (@fiat_justitia_) September 17, 2019
Not until somebody gets sued into oblivion. There’s apparently next to zero accountability in members of media spewing whatever falsehoods they wish.
— Sect 35, Row 72 (@md_schmidt) September 17, 2019
Beyond the news it breaks, "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh" is a book-length reminder of the derision with which some sexual-misconduct allegations are still treated. @megangarber writes: https://t.co/VutQqjnvyX
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) September 17, 2019
Could you let me know when you correct the error I identified in the excerpt of the book you published? Thank you!
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 18, 2019
The plot THICKENS! Co-writer of NYT piece on Kavanaugh, Robin Pogrebin, left out HUGE detail that could be a game changer https://t.co/48pha2hZ7K
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 17, 2019