Both Singer/songwriter Katy Perry and Clarence Thomas’ accuser Anita Hill will be honored at yet another political awards show next month. The idea of the this probably gets people wondering: “For what? Being fraudulent political hacks?”
Nina Totenberg, National Public Radio's legal affairs correspondent, talked to Grant Reeher on public radio station WRVO, warning about the Supreme Court’s threat to abortion rights, criticizing the hearing performance of Brett Kavanaugh, and denying her outlet’s liberal bias. The NPR member station, which serves New York state from the campus of SUNY-Oswego, posted on Friday some transcribed highlights from Reeher’s half-hour interview with Totenberg, whose liberal bona fides are well-established on NewsBusters.
New York Times’ Susan Chira, a “senior correspondent and editor on gender issues,” interviewed Anita Hill for some reason for Friday’s paper, “Hill Reflects: ‘Clearly the Tide Has Not Turned.’” Hill is seen by the press as a victim of both Clarence Thomas and the all-white, all-male Senate Judiciary Committee who brutally questioned her and has achieved secular sainthood, so there are never any inconvenient questions. Interviewing and citing Hill in the aftermath of sexual allegations against Republicans is a regular thing at the paper now. This one is keyed to the accusations hurled against now-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, whom the paper promises “we’re still investigating.”
The Brett Kavanaugh saga has really lit a feminist fire at New York magazine, whose “Women in Power” series of interviews with prominent women (liberal activists, liberal politicians, and liberal journalist Andrea Mitchell) was published in an online series and compiled in the October 15-29 print issue. Unsurprisingly Anita Hill held the lead slot of the massive feature. The headline trumpeted “Anita Hill Won, Even Though She Lost.” Linda Sarsour, the media-celebrated Muslim “feminist."
Journalists sometimes ignore facts and evidence in order to promote an ideological narrative. For example, journalists peddled the Duke Lacrosse and University of Virginia rape hoaxes even after they were debunked. They also continue to distort the facts about a 1991 Supreme Court nomination, in which the FBI and members of the U.S. Senate rejected as unfounded claims that Judge Clarence Thomas said sexually offensive things to Anita Hill.
Rounding up New York Times coverage of the Kavanaugh saga from Saturday: It had the gall to issue a front-page fact-check on only one side of Thursday’s gripping Supreme Court testimony, in “At Points, a Judge’s Defense Misleads and Veers Off Course.” Needless to say, Christine Blasey Ford didn’t get one. The paper’s “gender editor” Jessica Bennett also took a crack at the case on Saturday, bemoaning how unfair the process was on Blasey Ford. “Witness Walking a ‘Tight Rope’ of Testifying While Female.” And Anita Hill made an unsurprising appearance.
The New York Times editorial page on Friday joined the paper's news pages in criticizing Brett Kavanaugh’s “angry” tone in defending himself against uncorroborated assault allegations during his Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on Thursday. And former executive editor Jill Abramson doesn't seem to know what “corroborating evidence" means.
Friday morning’s CNN Newsroom couldn’t help but be in awe of a handful of female protesters who cornered Republican Senator Jeff Flake (AZ) as he boarded an elevator to attend a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Supreme Court pick Brett Kavanaugh. The takes were so hot that senior political analyst David Gergen wondered if Flake’s refusal to change his mind about Kavanaugh signaled that white Republican men truly understand the anguish of sexual misconduct (despite Kavanaugh’s vehement denials).
Going into Thursday’s show trial, the liberal media were hopeful that the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and speeches from Democratic Senators would get the public against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. But Ford’s perplexing lapses in memory, dubious collusion with Democratic Senators, and Kavanaugh’s own impassioned defense had put their hopes in jeopardy. So much so, that NBC Nightly News closed out the program by lamenting that “tribal politics” would keep us from seeing the hearing in the same way.
Even before accuser Christine Blasey Ford finished testifying on Thursday in Washington, D.C., about sexual assault charges against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a reporter with the Associated Press found a way to kill the time while waiting for something significant to happen. Reporter Calvin Woodward wrote an article asking AP readers: “Will the Kavanaugh-Ford Hearing Be a Where-Were-You Moment?”
The front page of the New York Times Sunday Review confirms it's now a bulletin board for the revolution-minded angry left. Michelle Alexander’s debut column used the accusation against Brett Kavanaugh as a hook for a loosely formatted shout-out to a hodge-podge of left-wing causes loosely lied to the anti-Trump “resistance." Meanwhile, Jennifer Weiner focused her ire solely at the patriarchy in “The Patriarchy Will Always Have Its Revenge.” The text box was eyebrow-raising: “I want to burn the frat house of America to the ground.”
New York Times reporter Kate Zernike made Saturday’s front page with her take on how Christine Blasey's allegation against Brett Kavanaugh is playing with the public: “Swing District Supports Her, But Gingerly,” from Doylestown, Pa. Zernike was struck that no one she talked to brought up Anita Hill -- but what about Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband? Bizarrely, Zernike skipped Clinton and reached all the way back to President Ronald Reagan for blame.