NYT Reporters: We Included Exculpatory Info On Kavanaugh — But Editors Removed It; Update: Another Omitted Detail?Who made the decision to excise the teensy little detail from the “new†reporting at the New York Times on Brett Kavanaugh that called into question the “new†allegation made? Don’t blame us, the book’s authors and NYT reporters told Lawrence O’Donnell last night on MSNBC. Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly claim that their submission of the “adaptation†from their book included the fact that the supposed victim of Kavanaugh at a second party doesn’t have any recollection of the incident. The editors removed it, they tell a credulous O’Donnell, because of sensitivity to using the names of victims of sexual assault.
Normally, however, editors work with contributors on their submissions. The process usually requires a last look by contributors to the edited material for any last-minute issues created by the editing. Why did the two reporters sign off on the submission rather than insist that the key sentence be restored to provide the proper context, perhaps with a redaction in place of the woman’s name? O’Donnell doesn’t ask, and the two never volunteer an answer.
Mollie Hemingway isn’t buying it for another reason. First, as she initially noted on Twitter, the two sat around for at least a full day without speaking up about the missing sentence and context, even when it started getting noticed. More importantly, though, Hemingway discovered that the two left out the same information in an NPR interview that was taped late last week before the NYT “adaptation†had been published:
...
Not only that, but the two also discuss with NPR how Leland Keyser helps to establish Christine Blasey Ford’s credibility without ever once mentioning that Keyser told them explicitly that she doesn’t find Blasey Ford credible.
...
Mollie
@MZHemingway
More than that, Pogrebin was long-time roommates at Yale with Kathy Charlton, a woman centrally involved in the anti-Kavanaugh efforts (according to public statements from her husband). That she was roommates is briefly disclosed, but Charlton's coordinating role is not
I'm thinking (FWLIW):
1. The claim that NYT editors removed reference to the supposed victim not remembering such an incident may well be false; if it is false, the NYT is not likely to be happy at a false accusation (I know, how hypocritical!)
and have the files and emails with which they can show the accusation is false;
2. The obvious ties between Pogrebin and Charlton is a conflict of interest that should have been mentioned in the NYT article and is another omission that should be explained;
2. This relationship also brings perspective to the Kelly-Pogrebin book, another conflict of interest that should have been noted, in the book; if it wasn't the publisher an Pogrebin have some 'splainin' to do.
