The New Yorker’s Ramirez story and the art of defamation
Needless to say, the New Yorker was extremely eager to pin another accusation on Kavanaugh. So their motives to publish the Ramirez story are obvious. Farrow and Mayer have also carved out a sort of niche of accusative journalism involving sexual abuse or harrassment allegations against public figures, and have achieved no small fame for it.
So why would they want to compromise that reputation by publishing such an iffy story? As I said, the motive to get Kavanaugh is strong, but that’s not the only reason they felt empowered to do this. Their probable defense is that they never say that Kavanaugh is guilty, they merely report what Ramirez said, and they even report that there are gaps in her memory and that the other named supposed-witnesses deny ever being privy to such a scene.
So Farrow and Mayer can say that they were reporting unverified rumors but they actually presented them as such, upfront, and therefore are protected because they didn’t publish them with “reckless disregard for the truth.”
I think it’s hogwash, for the simple reason that they know that in the current climate these unverified rumors have enormous force, and publishing them at all without strong evidence that they are true is to publish them with malice aforethought. But I’m not a judge and I’m not a jury.
This journalistic technique is not new. One previous instance that comes to mind was the attempt by the NY Times to smear John McCain during the 2008 election, in which the Times carefully calibrated its smears against McCain by reporting them this way:
The uproar was over an assertion in the second paragraph that during McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, some of his top advisers became “convinced” he was having a “romantic” relationship with a female lobbyist and intervened to protect the candidate from himself. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, denied they had an affair, and at a press conference after the article was published, McCain denied that anyone ever confronted him about their relationship. He described her as a friend.
The article had repercussions for both McCain and The Times. He may benefit, at least in the short run, from a conservative backlash against the “liberal” New York Times. The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance.
In a follow-up article on Friday, the newspaper even seemed to play down its role in the sex angle. It described the previous day’s article as talking about McCain’s “ties” to Iseman and his “association” with her. The only mention of romance came in quoting a question to McCain at his press conference.
That was ten years ago, and the MSM was more careful back then. But it’s the same modus operandi as that used by Farrow and Mayer now. Now the charges are much bolder, although the sourcing is probably even weaker, if such a thing be possible. But events in the last ten years—the Cosby trial, the Herman Cain accusations, the Moore debacle, the Steele dossier, and of course #MeToo—have created a climate in which this sort of thing will become more and more common and more and more outrageous and unfair.
As I said in the previous topic, Farrow’s and “The New Yorker’s” actions should not be forgotten.
Furthermore, Farrow and “The New Yorker” effectively launched the #MeToo movement. Therefore, F & NY have not only burned their credibility as responsible journalists in this obvious smear against Kavanaugh, they have diminished #MeToo’s as well.
To an extent #MeToo was a valid and necessary corrective, but like so much of feminism and SJWism #MeToo is revealed as a club intended for political opponents, not a principled stand for justice.
I canceled my subscription to the New Yorker at 5:30 this morning. Isn’t the internet great?
Amadeus 48:
I canceled mine some time back around 2005. I had had a subscription to that magazine since the early 70s, close to 35 years.
As a father of 2 sons and a grandfather of 4 grandsons, I find this frightening, and I suspect many others feel the same. I hope this backfires at the ballot box.
As noted by many, the Democrats are only selectively scandalized by sexual offenders.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/09/24/justice-william-o-douglas-liberal-icon-and-sexual-harasser/
“Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas is a liberal icon, despite being a bad judge and a simply awful human being. As former federal appeals court judge Richard Posner has noted:
“Apart from being a flagrant liar, Douglas was a compulsive womanizer, a heavy drinker, a terrible husband to each of his four wives, a terrible father to his two children, and a bored, distracted, uncollegial, irresponsible, and at times unethical Supreme Court justice.”
He was also a compulsive sexual harasser, who repeatedly assaulted women, as any number of court employees attested. My former boss, the late federal judge Larry Lydick, told me about how Justice Douglas would show up to judicial conferences and grope even the wives of federal judges, triggering fistfights with men whose wives he sexually assaulted.
Yet, he continues to be celebrated by progressives, because of his results-oriented rulings in favor of liberal causes.
Read the text of a very fine statement by McConnell in support of Kavanaugh.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/mcconnells-stand.php
It is absurd that the fate of our country (because the Court dominates both the Congress and the Presidency) depends on the feelz of these four people.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/24/trump-kavanaugh-allegations-totally-political-837684
“Republican leaders are closely watching the reactions of Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Bob Corker of Tennessee to the latest Kavanaugh news to determine whether they can proceed with the nomination, according to GOP senators and aides.”
https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/9/hatch-on-the-state-of-play-for-judge-kavanaugh-s-confirmation
“It should be clear now to all Americans that Democrats are engaged in a coordinated effort to stop Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation by any means possible. As I have said before, every accuser deserves to be heard. Moreover, a person who has committed sexual assault should not serve on the Supreme Court. But the way my Democratic colleagues have approached these allegations makes clear that the driving objective here is not truth, but politics.”
Trying to sneak around actual defamation would be similar to the allegations that Ford, and now Ramirez, are avoiding Senate perjury penalties by not actually filing complaints directly with the Senate committee.
Regarding the defamation of McCain, let’s see:
“The only mention of romance came in quoting a question to McCain at his press conference.”
So the journalists never actually said he was having an affair, they said “other people are saying he’s having an affair.”
Does this sound familiar? Remember when no one would publish the story in the Steele Dossier until James Comey briefed President-elect Trump about the dossier? Then soon thereafter, CNN reported that Trump had been briefed about a dossier that reported Russian prostitutes had peed on a bed for Trump. They were not reporting on the story, they were reporting on the fact that Trump had been briefed about the dossier. Uh-huh.
No, the CNN story was actually an effort to publicize the Russian prostitute story, not to report that the president-elect was briefed on it.
All of this is an attempted coup d’ètat by people who were not happy with Trump’s election. I’ve lived through several shooting coups while I was working in Africa. This is every bit the same, except for the lack of shooting. I thought America was better than this.
So the journalists never actually said he was having an affair, they said “other people are saying he’s having an affair.”
Michael Kinsley once offered that you look at British newspapers, you see headlines like “Shame on Those Who Say Princess Margaret is Having an Affair (pictures on p.3)”.
Art Deco on September 24, 2018 at 9:22 pm at 9:22 pm said:
So the journalists never actually said he was having an affair, they said “other people are saying he’s having an affair.”
Michael Kinsley once offered that you look at British newspapers, you see headlines like “Shame on Those Who Say Princess Margaret is Having an Affair (pictures on p.3)”.
* * *
Great story.
“I hope this backfires at the ballot box.”
Parker…I share your hope…but in many ways I wish we still had duels.
Defame a man’s character like this & risk a pistol shot through the heart.
I’d volunteer to be Judge Kavanaugh’s second.