2018.07.12 Kavanaugh or RBG
NYT had a snotty tone when intro'ing Brett Kavanaugh's and his record of "diversity". They mentioning the Women, and omitted the other minorities: 6 Asian Americans, 5 African American, and 2 Hispanics. They also omitted that Nefarious RBG has a far worse record for diversity, as that's the bar they would compare everyone to.
Basically the NYT (short for New Yellow-journalism Times) had to report the facts that 34 of the 48 former clerks (100% that were allowed to sign by the terms of their employment contracts), signed a testament to what a good Jurists and boss Kavanaugh was. 100% is a barrely passing score for a conservative -- and rather than stressing that they go with a tone that comes off very incredulous about all the testimonials on Kavanaugh's character (like going after the petty fashion comment about collar-stays), and they wrapping all commentary in scare quotes to make sure everyone knows they're just here-say and NOT the NYT esteemed views... and they seek out the opinions of a far-left dark-money funded shady-institution (Demand Justice) to take jabs. Color me skeptical that they would treat any leftist pick with the same tone or scrutiny.
What's interesting in is in their barbs are the lies of omission -- it's what they don't say that is often the real news. Like his record for hiring not just 25 women (of 48) but minorities: 6 Asian Americans, 5 African American, and 2 Hispanics. Why didn't they mention that? Since Ruth Bader Ginsberg is their hero and the lefts standards for what a jurist should be (and the NYT has never wrote an unkind word about her), how does she stack up? She's about equal on women, but has only ever hired 1 African American, in a far longer career and picking from the left side of the applicant pool seems to hint she's a bit of a racist. But whether she is or is not, we know that if a Republican had that bad a record, they would have been all over it and raising questions. But in RBG's case, the silence is deafening.