Journalism and Brett Kavanaugh.
The New York Times does a long piece today about unrest in the newsroom of the Washington Post.
The Times article opens with an example of the way the Washington Post views journalism and sources. There was a proposed story in the Post about Bob Woodward wanting to “out” Brett Kavanaugh as an unnamed source in Woodword’s 1999 book, “Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate.” The story was set to run during Kavanaugh’s Senate hearing.
Brett Kavanaugh
Mr. Woodward was planning to expose Mr. Kavanaugh because the judge had publicly denied — in a huffy letter in 1999 to The Post — an account about Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton that he had himself, confidentially, provided to Mr. Woodward for his book. (Mr. Kavanaugh served as a lawyer on Mr. Starr’s team.)
The article, described by two Post journalists who read it, would have been explosive, arriving as the nominee battled a decades-old sexual assault allegation and was fighting to prove his integrity.
Baron is right. I hate it, but he’s right.
When I was a reporter in the last century, I was subpeonaed two times to reveal my source. The first time I hid out for two weeks, moving when needed. The second time I let them serve me and then I walked into courtroom with the longtime mistress of the plaintiff, who he had broken up with only months before, whispering in my ear and giggling. I didn’t get called to testify, and the mistress got to see him almost pee his pants. It was a win/win day.
While Baron is right, and we all know that Kavanaugh has no integrity and likes beer. I doubt it would have made much difference in the vote. Those slime suckers still support Trump.