NY Times Gets Shredded by Its Own Readers After Trying To Explain Scrutiny of Kavanaugh's Wife
If you are someone who has enjoyed watching the people’s common-sense pushback against liberal media you are going to love this.
Readers of The New York Times seemed to be fed up and relentless in their criticism of the publication when it came to how they pursued records requests on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley.
Submitting public records requests is commonplace by nearly every news outlet across the country, but was it really due diligence to request documents from her position as town manager of the small community of the Village of Chevy Chase Section 5 in Maryland?
In what has been described by a reader as an attempt to “save face,” The Times published an explanation as to why they thought it was necessary to take a deep dive into Mrs. Kavanaugh’s personal business.
“We sought email records involving Judge Kavanaugh and communications that referenced hot-button topics. We believed that the records, if they existed, could provide a unique and personalized view into the nominee. We worked with the town to minimize the time and cost involved in responding to our request. (The Associated Press submitted its own request, and The Times and others have filed separate requests with the National Archives pertaining to Mr. Kavanaugh.)”
It may be no surprise to you that 85 pages of emails turned up no smoking guns that would disparage or disqualify Judge Kavanaugh from confirmation to the bench. But they had to try.
“Ultimately, our request yielded 85 pages of emails, none of which provided any substantive insights into Mr. Kavanaugh’s judicial philosophy. Instead, the records were largely what you would expect from a town manager’s email account — mundane dispatches about town business, from snow removals to local newsletters. Not surprisingly, a number of people, neighbors and strangers alike, sent Ashley Kavanaugh congratulations on her husband’s nomination.”
Readers’ comments illustrate they weren’t buying into the apparent weak excuses to justify the probe.
There were several comments requesting confirmation on just how much digging was done into spouse’s background for Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and other Democrat-appointed justices. Inquiring minds want to know.
“Pretty doubtful you did that with all previous nominees. Otherwise you would have mentioned it.”
“If you are looking for more dirt on Mr. Kavanaugh and his wife try contacting his veterinarian to see if Mr. Kavanaugh beats his dog, contact his pizza delivery person to see if Mr. Kavanaugh gives a proper tip, and check with his neighbors to see if he waters his lawn on the wrong days.”
“If you are not looking for more dirt then leave his wife out of it and look only at his past judgments and writings.”
“I have just one question– was your research into Justice Kagen and Justice Sotomayor as in-depth and invasive???”
“It doesn’t seem as if many people accept this justification at face value. They do not seem to buy the premise that the NYTs was an unbiased, objective, and trustworthy source.
Most people would like The Times to back up their statements with some facts concerning this being standard procedure.
Add me to the list of who would like seeing the justification go beyond the “just trust us” level.”
At the time this post was published, the clear majority of commenters were questioning and pushing back against The Times’ journalistic integrity regarding their explanation to the records request.
The people have spoken. It looks like The New York Times better step up its game if they expect to maintain their audience.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
