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.
Remind me never to get on you bad side.
1So, democracy dies in the light, too, eh?
2Shades of the John Bolton book. I’m still waiting to know who all was briefed on the Russia bounties on our military. Someone needs to step up, because if a book is written about it later I may set all of them on fire!
3When the source lies the agreement to protect them is nullified. There are no hard rules about it obviously but that’s the general understanding. Either Kavanaugh lied when he talked to Woodward or when he wrote the letter to the editor.
The Post should have published the piece.
4Kavanaugh fed information to Woodward and then publicly stated that the very same information, which Woodward included in his book was wrong. Kavanaugh slandered Woodward. There can be no reasonable expectation that his anonymity would be protected after that stab in the back.
Whether or not you think it would have affected the Senate decision is immaterial. The public and the Senate had a right to know what a dishonest hack Kavanaugh is.
5I was a reporter and editor for 45 years and I think I take Lumpkin’s side.
I never faced exactly this because I mostly avoided that kind of source but I did get sued and attacked otherwise.
If the promise is inviolable, then the publisher can get played, set up even by someone planting a small gem while intending to explode a much bigger one later on.
6Okay, Lumpkin, I see your side. I would probably need more detail. If the source lied to the reporter, you’re absolutely right. Game over. But I don’t know the extent he lied afterwards. Did he liable Woodward or just say such and such isn’t true years later. I expected my anonymous sources to protect themselves. That’s part of the deal. During the last 15 years I worked I quit doing off the record. I just would say, “nope.” It’s a small town and somebody is going to tell me. I started getting unsigned letters. I would follow any lead but didn’t rely on them as a primary source. I was never sued because I never printed personal dirt but I had it just in case.
7Damn, JJ. Just when I think I respect and admire you, you come up with a personal history tidbit like this. Now, i admire and respect you even more.
Similarly for you, Harry Eagar@6. I don’t know the journalistic ethics of this, but appreciate you think of and apply them personally. Now if you and JJ could just get Breitbart to do the same …. But that would probably require both of you to use a tire iron and baseball bat. Although an ex-mistress is probably an even more savage weapon to brandish in court!
8The US Senate Legal Committee approved Cavanaugh’s candidacy for the position of judge of the Supreme Court and sent her to a general vote in the Senate, CBS News reported. Decisive was the voice of Republican Jeff Flake, who supported Cavanaugh on the condition that a new FBI check be conducted before the vote.
9We need lots and lots of news sources so they can ride herd on each other. That’s the correcting method of journalism. I’d say it worked way better than things like medical review boards for doctors. But at some point you get too many that are too small. That’s what makes FB such a swamp.
I have no remedies to suggest.
10