Difference between revisions of "NYT on Tara Reade"
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Most importantly, remember how they treated this different. They didn't publicize the story and troll for responses like they had with Trump or Kavanaugh, and then form an editorial position. They just formed an opinion before the story was widely talked about, anyone had a chance to com forward, or anything other than taking Lisa Lerer's word that it was investigated. They seem to have buried the lede like they buried the John Edwards, Harvey Weinstein, or Al Gore's sexual scandals. Jounralism has standards, not double standards.}} | Most importantly, remember how they treated this different. They didn't publicize the story and troll for responses like they had with Trump or Kavanaugh, and then form an editorial position. They just formed an opinion before the story was widely talked about, anyone had a chance to com forward, or anything other than taking Lisa Lerer's word that it was investigated. They seem to have buried the lede like they buried the John Edwards, Harvey Weinstein, or Al Gore's sexual scandals. Jounralism has standards, not double standards.}} | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| + | {{HH02|Premature editorial position|Their defense is that it was a couple of weeks ago and the details hadn't come out yet. So now of course it's more credible. Of course that belies the point that they put their reputation on the line by claiming they put their crack journalists and investigators, and was assuring their readership that there was no "there" there. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yet, it came out of the following weeks that they didn't bother to interview her ex husband, her friends, ask her who else might know... and many others that came forward to let the public know that Tara's story is nothing new. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Most importantly, remember how they treated this different. They didn't publicize the story and troll for responses like they had with Trump or Kavanaugh, and then form an editorial position. They just formed an opinion before the story was widely talked about, anyone had a chance to com forward, or anything other than taking Lisa Lerer's word that it was investigated. They seem to have buried the lede like they buried the John Edwards, Harvey Weinstein, or Al Gore's sexual scandals. Jounralism has standards, not double standards.}} | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | {{HH02|Lisa Lerer's double standards|I don't like attacking the source (ad hominem) -- that's often a tool of people that can't argue the merits of their points. On the other hand, the character and patterns of the author do deserve some scrutiny -- especially when the point is whether they are being morally or journalistically consistent. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Any superficial background research into Lisa Lerer on Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh, or anything to do with Trump allegations, shows a completely different standard than how she framed things... there was no investigation into [[Christine Blasey Ford]]'s obvious democrat activism and bias, her scrubbing and sanitizing of her social posts and getting a PR firm and Democrat representation before coming forward, and obvious things like that. Women are to be believed! After pounding the story without any hard evidence, the NYT/Lisa pivoted to things like how even if he was confirmed this deserved more investigation and how the poll numbers showed public sympathy (without explaining that they'd ginned up the charges to get those poll trends), and so on. You won't hear ANY of that around Biden. Either that means it wasn't a worthy tack to take back then, or they're failing at their journalistic responsibilities now. But the double standard is obvious. <ref>NYT/Lisa on Kavanaugh accusations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WJB01mcjQ</ref> | ||
| + | }} | ||
| Line 21: | Line 31: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
* https://reason.com/2020/04/12/tara-reade-joe-biden-new-york-times-sexual-assault/ | * https://reason.com/2020/04/12/tara-reade-joe-biden-new-york-times-sexual-assault/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
{{/ref|Tara Reade|NYT}} | {{/ref|Tara Reade|NYT}} | ||
[[Category:FakeNews]] [[Category:NYT]][[Category:Tara Reade]] [[Category:New]] | [[Category:FakeNews]] [[Category:NYT]][[Category:Tara Reade]] [[Category:New]] | ||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
Revision as of 13:59, 10 May 2020
 |
|---|
NYT has often been criticized for their double standards on how they treat (D)'s vs. (R)'s, and Lisa Lerer's double standard with regards to how they handled sexual harassment claims against Joe Biden vs. Brett Kavanaugh showed it in spades with their response to Tara Reade's credible claims. They tweeted and summarized their editorial position as, “The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."
In response to the heat they were getting for that they edited the tweet and caption, released articles, and did their podcast with Lisa Lerer to justify their position. The problem isn't that they applied journalistic scrutiny towards Tara's claims, the problem is that this was newly found, something they never applied to Trump or Kavanaugh's accusers (despite a far less credible claims), that they spun their response, and most of all that their framing of the arguments is so easy to contrast.
Details
| 🗒️ NOTE: |
|---|
| My position is not that I think skepticism of claims in a political campaign is a bad thing, quite the contrary. But I wasn't championing "All Women Should be Believed" like Biden the DNC and the NYT was during the Kavanaugh or Trump attacks. I have a problem with the flip-flop on their editorial standards. As well as the incredible bias in the way they frame things. |
| Damage Control - After pressure over the insensitivity of the tweet and articles, NYT went back and removed “beyond the hugs, kisses and touching”... but stood by the "we found no evidence". [1] Of course they didn't do it in a journalistic way with a mea culpa, they stealth edited it, so they could pretend it never happened... like it was one of Joe's sexual assaults. |
| Premature editorial position - Their defense is that it was a couple of weeks ago and the details hadn't come out yet. So now of course it's more credible. Of course that belies the point that they put their reputation on the line by claiming they put their crack journalists and investigators, and was assuring their readership that there was no "there" there.
Yet, it came out of the following weeks that they didn't bother to interview her ex husband, her friends, ask her who else might know... and many others that came forward to let the public know that Tara's story is nothing new. Most importantly, remember how they treated this different. They didn't publicize the story and troll for responses like they had with Trump or Kavanaugh, and then form an editorial position. They just formed an opinion before the story was widely talked about, anyone had a chance to com forward, or anything other than taking Lisa Lerer's word that it was investigated. They seem to have buried the lede like they buried the John Edwards, Harvey Weinstein, or Al Gore's sexual scandals. Jounralism has standards, not double standards. |
| Premature editorial position - Their defense is that it was a couple of weeks ago and the details hadn't come out yet. So now of course it's more credible. Of course that belies the point that they put their reputation on the line by claiming they put their crack journalists and investigators, and was assuring their readership that there was no "there" there.
Yet, it came out of the following weeks that they didn't bother to interview her ex husband, her friends, ask her who else might know... and many others that came forward to let the public know that Tara's story is nothing new. Most importantly, remember how they treated this different. They didn't publicize the story and troll for responses like they had with Trump or Kavanaugh, and then form an editorial position. They just formed an opinion before the story was widely talked about, anyone had a chance to com forward, or anything other than taking Lisa Lerer's word that it was investigated. They seem to have buried the lede like they buried the John Edwards, Harvey Weinstein, or Al Gore's sexual scandals. Jounralism has standards, not double standards. |
| Lisa Lerer's double standards - I don't like attacking the source (ad hominem) -- that's often a tool of people that can't argue the merits of their points. On the other hand, the character and patterns of the author do deserve some scrutiny -- especially when the point is whether they are being morally or journalistically consistent.
Any superficial background research into Lisa Lerer on Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh, or anything to do with Trump allegations, shows a completely different standard than how she framed things... there was no investigation into Christine Blasey Ford's obvious democrat activism and bias, her scrubbing and sanitizing of her social posts and getting a PR firm and Democrat representation before coming forward, and obvious things like that. Women are to be believed! After pounding the story without any hard evidence, the NYT/Lisa pivoted to things like how even if he was confirmed this deserved more investigation and how the poll numbers showed public sympathy (without explaining that they'd ginned up the charges to get those poll trends), and so on. You won't hear ANY of that around Biden. Either that means it wasn't a worthy tack to take back then, or they're failing at their journalistic responsibilities now. But the double standard is obvious. [2] |
|
| ||||||
