I apologize.
In the several blogs I have written skewering the new york times for publishing its completely unevidenced BS hit piece on Supreme Court Justic Brett Kavanaugh, and leaving out the fact that one of his accusers was never interviewed directly but told friends she had no recollection it ever happened….
…I did not mention that, in addition to all this, the times put up a tweet so disgustingly offensive that reader reaction shamed the “newspaper” (is the new york times really a newspaper anymore) into quickly deleting it.
Here is what the times tweeted, then deleted:
“Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun. But when Brett Kavanaugh did it to her, Deborah Ramirez says, it confirmed that she didn’t belong at Yale University in the first place.”
Again: no evidence that this ever happened and no indication that, by her own admission, the woman in question, Deborah Ramirez, was “drinking heavily” at the party – in other words, she was almost certainly one of the drunks disdainfully referenced in the tweet.
If the definition of a newspaper is a paper that provides news – not propaganda against people it hates, but news – what currently qualifies the new york times for that definition?
