Gut journalism



cred·​i·​ble | \ ˈkre-də-bəl  \

Definition of credible

1offering reasonable grounds for being believed
This week the mainstream media and Democrats jumped into another vicious smear campaign against Supreme Court Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, following a New York Times story rolled out via a tweet on Twitter:

“Last week, The Times faced swift condemnation for a now-deleted tweet that referred to Kavanaugh’s alleged actions as “harmless fun.”

“Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun. But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn’t belong at Yale in the first place,” the tweet read.

NYT cultural reporter Robin Pogrebin appeared alongside her colleague Kate Kelly on “The View,” where she confirmed earlier reports that she herself wrote that tweet.”

Pogrebin and Kelly have a new book about the Kavanaugh allegations and since this roll-out to their new book its quickly devolved into an embarrassing debacle.  The New York Times, the mainstream media and Democrats  leaped into another whirlwind smear campaign against Kavanaugh and it’s been imploding rapidly.

The New York Times  quickly backpedaled from the tweet, a day later, the journalists were blaming the New York Times editors for misrepresenting their story (even though Pogrebin in another interview admits she actually wrote that salacious tweet the NY Times ran), and as the conservative and Trump-aligned media began highlighting excerpts from Pogrebin and Kelly’s book, several things have become very clear.

The new allegation of sexual misconduct leveled against Kavanaugh, in this latest Dem smear campaign effort, has no credible corroboration whatsoever.  In fact, the alleged victim, did not want to be interviewed and these journalists report her close friends said she does not even recall any such incident ever happening.

There are no eye witness accounts to this alleged incident and the only source these two journalists used was a second-hand source, Max Stier, but even here these two journalists didn’t even interview him directly.  From a Howard Kurtz, at FOX News,  analysis:

After all, in an opinion-section essay adapted from their forthcoming book, reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly cited only one second-hand source. They didn’t even talk to that source, a former Yale classmate named Max Stier, directly. They got his account from two unnamed “officials” who had spoken to him.

Kurtz also had this information:

“By the time I was back on the air yesterday morning, I’d gotten the first public comment from the justice’s camp. A source close to Kavanaugh said of the Times piece: “This was a disgusting effort to smear Justice Kavanaugh to sell a few books. There is nothing new here: The woman who supposedly experienced this incident does not remember it. And Senate Democrats had this information before Justice Kavanaugh was confirmed but never said a word about it.”

And it turns out another major newspaper passed on the allegations:

“The Washington Post last year confirmed that two intermediaries had relayed such a claim to lawmakers and the FBI. The Post did not publish a story in part because the intermediaries declined to identify the alleged witness and because the woman who was said to be involved declined to comment.”

There were other details—such as Max Stier being described only as a respected lawyer, but not as someone who defended Bill Clinton against sexual allegations—that felt like tipping the scales.”

The two journalists have been doing the full rounds of the mainstream media trying to repackage their debunked allegation and smear based on zero corroboration and an alleged victim who doesn’t even recall any such event ever happening.

Here’s the level of absurdity with the investigation and the real “tell” –  these two journalists claim they didn’t even talk to their one named second-hand source, Max Stier, but got the information from “officials”.  They should be asked who were these so-called  “officials” and that would connect one loop in this orchestrated Dem/media smear campaign.

A word that the mainstream media and Dems toss about to bolster allegations made in their orchestrated smear campaigns is “credible”.  Assuredly, now that this latest allegation, where even the alleged victim said the incident never happened and there are no first-hand corroborating witnesses (just like the Christine Blasey-Ford, Ramirez and Swetnick allegations), as soon as the dust dies down from this latest failed smear effort, many of these same media mouthpieces and Dems will redouble their efforts to reintroduce and recast this totally bogus allegation as “credible”.  For some reason, many of these mouthpieces claim to be dedicated “journalists”…

The two authors of this latest Kavanaugh smear effort didn’t even highlight one of the most fascinating allegations in their own new book.  Mollie Hemingway, co-author of Justice On Trial, has covered the Kavanaugh confirmation and smear campaign extensively and she broke much of the news debunking this latest allegation against Kavanaugh.  She writes:

“The authors also acknowledge what had previously been reported in “Justice on Trial,” about the efforts of mutual friends to get her to change her testimony to be more supportive of Blasey Ford. The reporters say that some of Blasey Ford’s friends “had grown frustrated with Keyser. Her comments about the alleged Kavanaugh incident had been too limited, some of them felt, and did not help their friend’s case. Surely, given what a close friend Keyser had been, she could say more to substantiate Ford’s testimony and general veracity, even if she could not corroborate Ford’s more specific memories.”

A group text was formed in which friends such as Cheryl Amitay and Lulu Gonella discussed how to get her to say something more helpful to the cause. An unnamed man on the text suggested that they defame her as an addict. Keyser has been in recovery for some time, as her friends know and as has previously been reported.

Amitay answered, “Leland is a major stumbling block.” While asserting she didn’t want her to make anything up out of whole cloth, she offered ideas for things that could sound supportive of Ford’s story, such as that she’d been in similar situations with Blasey Ford that summer.

“I was told behind the scenes that certain things could be spread about me if I didn’t comply,” Keyser told the reporters, a stunning admission of the pressure to which she was subjected to by Blasey Ford’s allies.”

Even from the beginnings of the Dem spin smear campaigns, back during the Clinton years, reports of intimidation of witnesses emerged.  That pressure on Keyser, a Democrat, to change her story,  should be investigated. Who was the unnamed man mentioned in the text?  Who was in contact with with Amitay and Gonella directing them to pressure Leland Keyser?

As for “credible”, the two authors, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, of this latest Kavanaugh smear effort, claim to be “journalists”, yet for them lack of evidence and corroboration or even more discrediting, flat-out refutation by key witnesses gets ignored and instead Hemingway writes, “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.” 

These journalists prefer to trust their gut rather than facts…

We are in a strange new world where the solid meaning of words that undergird living in a fact-based world takes a backseat to propping up partisan propaganda.


Leave a comment

Filed under Corrupt Media Collusion, General Interest, Information War, Politics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s