The New York Times Becomes The Story

Between an offensive tweet and a significant revision, The New York Times’ handling of a new sexual misconduct allegation against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh attracted almost as much attention as the accusation itself.

The Associated Press reports the story also gave President Donald Trump and his allies fresh ammunition in his campaign against the media, where the Times was already a favorite target.

The revelation that led several Democratic presidential contenders to call for Kavanaugh’s impeachment came in the 11th paragraph of a story labeled “news analysis” that ran in the Sunday opinion section. The story is based on an upcoming book by Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation,” about the junior justice’s brutal confirmation battle last year.

Read More Now

At a campaign rally Monday night, President Donald Trump denounced 'The New York Times' for a recent controversial report on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump accused reporters of destroying the Old Gray Lady's "virtue" and ruining her reputation.



Also, a New York Times reporter on Monday blamed editors at the paper for removing critical information from an article on an alleged incident of sexual misconduct involving Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, according to The National Review.

The article was widely pilloried for relating details of the incident, in which Kavanaugh allegedly opened his pants at a party in college while a friend pushed his penis into the hand of a woman also present, without mentioning that the woman has no recollection of the incident and had declined to be interviewed.

An editor’s note containing the exculpatory information was added to the article in a later version.

Reporter Robin Pogrebin addressed the issue in an MSNBC interview along with her coauthor Kate Kelly, saying that the information was originally in the article, but that it was removed during the editing process.

“I think what happened was that…we had [the woman’s] name, and the Times doesn’t usually include the name of the victim, and so in this case I think the editors felt like maybe it was better to remove it, and in removing her name, they removed the other reference to the fact that she didn’t remember [the incident],” said Pogrebin. She continued that she thought the removal was done “in the haste of the editing process.”