The New York Times is taking serious heat from all sides for publishing a disastrous Opinion section article this past weekend that alleges U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh forced his penis into the hand of a female student at Yale back in the 1980s. The article completely omits the fact that the alleged victim does not even remember the alleged event.
Over at CNN Business, Oliver Darcy writes that The New York Times completely “fumbled a high-profile story” that embarrassed the Times’ opinion editor, James Bennet.
“It was the latest in a series of high-profile blunders that has caused embarrassment to James Bennet since he was appointed in 2016 as the editor overseeing The Times’ Opinion section,” writes Darcy. “Bennet’s tenure has been marked with several mishaps that have generated controversy, drawn criticism, and spurred at least one lawsuit … While the Opinion section has unquestionably produced strong work in the years since Bennet took over, it has also been culpable for some of the biggest journalistic black eyes at The Times during that period.”
Despite that, a spokesperson for the Times defended Bennet’s decision to publish the piece that said nothing about the fact the alleged victim had no recollection of a sexual assault occurring.
“Opinion produces powerful journalism that makes a difference in people’s lives from the ground-breaking, on-going Privacy Project to an editorial series on laws that value a fetus over the life of the mother, to an on-camera essay by Alysia Montaño that resulted in a number of companies changing their contracts with female athletes to protect women during and after pregnancy,” the spokesperson for the Times told CNN Business. “The diversity and quality of this work is being embraced not just by readers but by professional peers.”
Even CNN’s Brian Stelter, the same host who once allowed a psychologist to claim that President Trump is worse than Stalin or Hitler, called out the Times for such a glaring mistake.
“Times turmoil,” read the headline to Stelter’s morning media newsletter, in which he advised the newspaper to “take disciplinary action in the wake of this embarrassing episode.”
“It is certainly possible, I’m told by a plugged-in staffer, as the newspaper reviews a glaring omission in its original story about the book and an offensive tweet about the story,” said Stelter.
Over at The Washington Post, Erik Wemple said that the Times has some “explaining to do.”
“The roar from the Internet left the New York Times with some explaining to do. How did this piece land in the Sunday Review section? What was going on here?”
“That’s a grievous omission, one that could account for some of the outrage following initial publication of the piece,” continued Wemple.
Joe Scarborough of MSNBC has been equally critical of the Times for publishing the Opinion piece while omitting key facts. “I could not believe The New York Times would write this piece without that information contained in it. Are you surprised 24 hours … went by before they clarified that fact?” he said on Monday.