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.”
Journalists have been bashing conservative Supreme Court judges for decades. Even after Clarence Thomas was confirmed, reporters never liked him much. On November 2, 2007, Jeffrey Toobin sneered that Thomas is “angry,” “bitter,” and “isolated.”
CNN has made a hero out of Kaitlan Collins, after the young White House correspondent was banned from one press briefing for her petulant behavior a few months ago. But maybe they should make sure their reporters actually know what they’re talking about before giving them important assignments like reporting from the swearing-in ceremony of the next Supreme Court justice.
Brett Kavanaugh may have won his Supreme Court nomination, but New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak tried to defuse the excitement on the front page of Sunday’s paper: “Confirmation Battle May Have Eroded the Public Trust.” Now that conservatives have an apparent majority, the Supreme Court is now suddenly “injured and diminished.” Liptak also warned with this liberal talking point: "It cannot help the court’s reputation that a third of its male justices have been questioned about sexual misconduct."
WASHINGTON — If you have read enough pro-Kavanaugh articles, give this one a pass. You are not going to like it. Yet if you have not heard enough, you will probably like this one. I have nothing but congratulatory things to say about Judge Brett Kavanaugh. As with Justice Clarence Thomas, he is a fighter. He is a gifted defender of the truth. And he is worthy of serving on the highest court in the land. I would trust my case with him, and I would trust yours, too, whether you are with him now or against him. He believes in the rule of law.
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.
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.
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.
After having spent their entire Thursday listening to testimonies from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the mood on CBS’s panel seemed to be one of resignation and even admission by some of them that Kavanaugh appears headed for confirmation. Right after the hearing ended, chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford observed that “[p]eople saying that she looked credible on both sides” and while it seemed grim for Kavanaugh’s chances this morning, Kavanaugh’s came through, thus leading to a “shift in the room.”
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?”
Jane Mayer made the network rounds, this week, promoting her New Yorker hit piece on Brett Kavanaugh, but a look at her past demonstrates why her work should be taken with biggest grains of salt as she has become a go-to author for partisan attack stories.
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.”