As we told you earlier, an editor’s note was spotted as having been added to a New York Times article about an allegation against SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh:
'BOMBSHELL': NYT adds BRUTAL editor's note to its Kavanaugh hit piece; Will anyone get fired? https://t.co/jRvYuxMSVk
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 16, 2019
BOMBSHELL: New York Times corrects Kavanaugh smear to note alleged victim does not recall any such incident. pic.twitter.com/yigeOyOCzo
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) September 16, 2019
Well that changes things just a little, and by “just a little” we mean “shoots down the entire attempted smear on Kavanaugh.” In the wake of that disgrace to “journalism,” some are now trying to boost the credibility of the witness and former Clinton attorney, Max Stier. In one such example, Jeryl Bier noticed that the Times’ reporter, Robin Pogrebin, a co-author of the corrected story in question, was among those who retweeted a claim from The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer that was obviously intended to boost Stier’s resume:
One of the authors of the @nytimes piece on Kavanaugh (@rpogrebin) RT'd a @JaneMayerNYer tweet that says "Max Stier… is a Rhodes Scholar". Follow up tweet from Mayer corrects: he is NOT a Rhodes Scholar. Pogrebin has not RT'd the less popular correction.https://t.co/oMqOrnnqDv pic.twitter.com/h7Zir0W4Bf
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) September 16, 2019
Naturally the incorrect tweet from Mayer was retweeted a whole lot more than the correction, at least partly thanks to journos like Pogrebin. A day later, Pogrebin’s retweet remains and Mayer correcting the record has not been retweeted.
This is not just about @rpogrebin not RTing the correction. She apparently did not realize herself, despite all the work on the book, that Max Stier was not a Rhodes Scholar or she'd have just corrected @JaneMayerNYer instead of RTing the original incorrect tweet.
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) September 16, 2019
Another banner week for “journalism.”
#journalism https://t.co/f3TP69psvu
— Marie Arf (@schwingcat) September 16, 2019
Can't have facts getting in the way of a narrative to destroy an innocent man.
— random thoughts (@musings_n) September 16, 2019
This is how smearing works in 2019:
-make a tweet that lies, 100k retweets
-retraction or correction: 20 retweets
the original intent of the lie, to mislead the public, still has the desired effect.
— random thoughts (@musings_n) September 16, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member