A bad 24 hours for journalism

Since last night, we've witnessed several lessons about acceptable news reportage.

First, a new woman emerged against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, but even some journalists can't believe what they are watching.  The new woman's story is based on a corroborating witness who wasn't at the party.  What?  Apparently, he heard something about the party after it happened.  Again, what?

Jedediah Bila wrote this:

New Yorker piece doesn't even confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party, contains an admission of memory gaps by Ramirez due to intoxication, and has numerous people on the record disputing her claim. 

Once again, I'm awaiting facts: evidence, corroboration, possible testimony

Caleb Hull put it this way:

Timeline:

• She didn't know who it was for 35 years

• Kavanaugh was nominated

• She met with Dem lawyer for 6 days to "assess her memories"

• Accused Kavanaugh

• She still isn't even sure it was him

• All the witnesses deny it

• Kavanaugh denies it

• Other outlets passed on story

It looks as if the second woman's story has more holes than the first woman's story.

How can a business continue to be this sloppy?  Don't these news organization have editors or people on staff who double-check this stuff?

Journalism did not do much better on Monday morning.  First, we heard that Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein had resigned.  Then we learned that he was on his way to the White House to resign or get fired.  It was all because of that Friday story about the deputy A.G. preparing a case to bring down the president through the 25th Amendment.

Well, it turns out that he did go to the White House, but it was a prearranged meeting, and now he will meet with President Trump on Thursday.  To be honest, I did not understand how the deputy A.G. was on his way to see the president in the White House on the day President Trump was in New York.  Maybe I'm too logical.

The second "woman story" is just bad journalism.  The deputy A.G. story is just another case of "sources" not knowing what they are talking about.

In the meantime, journalism suffers again.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

Since last night, we've witnessed several lessons about acceptable news reportage.

First, a new woman emerged against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, but even some journalists can't believe what they are watching.  The new woman's story is based on a corroborating witness who wasn't at the party.  What?  Apparently, he heard something about the party after it happened.  Again, what?

Jedediah Bila wrote this:

New Yorker piece doesn't even confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party, contains an admission of memory gaps by Ramirez due to intoxication, and has numerous people on the record disputing her claim. 

Once again, I'm awaiting facts: evidence, corroboration, possible testimony

Caleb Hull put it this way:

Timeline:

• She didn't know who it was for 35 years

• Kavanaugh was nominated

• She met with Dem lawyer for 6 days to "assess her memories"

• Accused Kavanaugh

• She still isn't even sure it was him

• All the witnesses deny it

• Kavanaugh denies it

• Other outlets passed on story

It looks as if the second woman's story has more holes than the first woman's story.

How can a business continue to be this sloppy?  Don't these news organization have editors or people on staff who double-check this stuff?

Journalism did not do much better on Monday morning.  First, we heard that Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein had resigned.  Then we learned that he was on his way to the White House to resign or get fired.  It was all because of that Friday story about the deputy A.G. preparing a case to bring down the president through the 25th Amendment.

Well, it turns out that he did go to the White House, but it was a prearranged meeting, and now he will meet with President Trump on Thursday.  To be honest, I did not understand how the deputy A.G. was on his way to see the president in the White House on the day President Trump was in New York.  Maybe I'm too logical.

The second "woman story" is just bad journalism.  The deputy A.G. story is just another case of "sources" not knowing what they are talking about.

In the meantime, journalism suffers again.

PS: You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.