Speaker 1: The Armstrong and Getty Show. So I still contend the
Speaker 1: biggest story out of this whole Kavanaugh thing is not
Speaker 1: what he did or didn't do it a college party.
Speaker 1: It's where we are with some of our biggest media
Speaker 1: in the world. I you know, Trump likes beating up
Speaker 1: on the New York Times, and I can certainly understand why.
Speaker 1: I want the New York Times to be better. I
Speaker 1: want them to be good. I want them to be
Speaker 1: a place that the whole world can go to and
Speaker 1: think you're going to get some serious, solid journalism that's
Speaker 1: just in pursuit of the truth. And man, did they
Speaker 1: do damage to that over the weekend. I would agree completely.
Speaker 1: The Washington Examiner, on the other hand, still rock steady
Speaker 1: and Tim Carney is the commentary editor for The Washington Examiner,
Speaker 1: also the author of what sounds like a really really
Speaker 1: interesting book, Alienated America. Why some places thrive while others collapse.
Speaker 1: That sounds like a future podcast, Tim, How are you
Speaker 1: doing well? Thanks for having me pleasure. I want to
Speaker 1: read one of your tweets back at you the last
Speaker 1: forty eight hours, and you wrote this yesterday. The last
Speaker 1: forty eight hours have had one of the most flagrant
Speaker 1: failures of elite media, and there's Zeroly and then there
Speaker 1: is nearly zero visible introspection about this. How bad was
Speaker 1: what the New York Times did From a journalistic standpoint,
Speaker 1: It was dreadful because it was obviously intentional. The two
Speaker 1: bits of information that they left out would have each
Speaker 1: taken about eight words to include. Number one, After you
Speaker 1: say that Brett Kavanov has been accused of the sexually
Speaker 1: assaulting a woman, maybe say the woman says she has
Speaker 1: no memory of it ever happening. That's not a lot
Speaker 1: of words, and it dramatically changes the story. And then
Speaker 1: when you are introducing the guy who's making the accusation,
Speaker 1: and you, uh, you have a little passage where you
Speaker 1: get to describe who this guy, Max Sire is. You
Speaker 1: maybe say he is a longtime Democratic operative and lawyer
Speaker 1: for Bill Clinton. Again, that's about ten words. No, they
Speaker 1: said and said he is a executive at a nonprofit.
Speaker 1: As soon as I saw those words, I actually read
Speaker 1: this article Saturday night thinking oh, do they have something
Speaker 1: at him? And as soon as I saw executive and nonprofit,
Speaker 1: I said, ah, ten seconds of Google will turn up
Speaker 1: who this guy is. But here's the problem regular readers
Speaker 1: don't have that don't have the instincts, the ability. They
Speaker 1: shouldn't have to do all the extra work to figure
Speaker 1: out if I got the time. I've got the time
Speaker 1: to look it up when I'm reading an article, but
Speaker 1: I just don't feel like I should have to check
Speaker 1: and see if Yeah. The journalists are supposed to do
Speaker 1: the work for the reader, but instead they're leaving every
Speaker 1: This is my in laws were telling me over the
Speaker 1: weekend before this story even came out. My problem is
Speaker 1: I feel like I have to do at least half
Speaker 1: an hour of research after every article. Everything that's the
Speaker 1: modern world. We've been talking about that for a long time.
Speaker 1: You have to do homework. If you want to take
Speaker 1: in news now from any side, you have to like, okay,
Speaker 1: I need to cross verify that. So if anybody else
Speaker 1: is saying this, or if they're tough left out, it's crazy, right.
Speaker 1: And so you end up with in America with two
Speaker 1: completely different you know, hemispheres of of experience and what
Speaker 1: they think is knowledge because they just they read different
Speaker 1: things in different places and formed completely different worldviews. Would
Speaker 1: it be fair Tim Carney to say that the bulk
Speaker 1: of the article was about an allegation that other people
Speaker 1: said this Clinton operative had talked about and he was
Speaker 1: simply there, and this is this is roughly third hand
Speaker 1: or is it fourth yea. So those two different main
Speaker 1: accusations in the New York Times piece. One of them
Speaker 1: is the supposed corroboration of the Debora ramire As accusation
Speaker 1: that came out during the confirmation hearings. And the authors
Speaker 1: say that this is more corroborated than the main accusation,
Speaker 1: the Christine Blasi Ford, and I agree that this one
Speaker 1: is more corroborated the Debora Ramiras one. In the Christine
Speaker 1: Blasi Ford all four people who were supposedly there have
Speaker 1: said they have no memory that happening or didn't happen
Speaker 1: in the Debora Ramira's accusation. After this book is written,
Speaker 1: all three people who were supposedly there have said it
Speaker 1: didn't happen and they would remember it happening. So being
Speaker 1: denied by only three possible witnesses a little less uncorroborated
Speaker 1: than being denied by all four the Debora ramires one.
Speaker 1: I recommend you go and check out on our website
Speaker 1: at the Examiner. Tianna Lowe wrote a piece called the
Speaker 1: Debora Ramires corroboration that wasn't and then UM, in a
Speaker 1: slightly different style Byron York, went ahead and went through
Speaker 1: all seven people UM supposedly corroborating that, and UM, none
Speaker 1: of them actually heard none of them even claimed that
Speaker 1: they heard Kavanaugh's name connected to it. And the one
Speaker 1: who did heard about it from somebody else who wasn't
Speaker 1: even there. He's now saying that he did it, so
Speaker 1: that that was the Ramira's accusation. The Max dire accusation
Speaker 1: is a brand new one. There is one source, he's
Speaker 1: a Democratic operative, a fact the New York Times hit
Speaker 1: from us UM, and there's there's no other corroboration of
Speaker 1: this story. And the supposed victim denies that it happened.
Speaker 1: We're talking with Tim Carney, commentary editor for the Washington Examiner,
Speaker 1: again on the big picture of what this does to
Speaker 1: the way people look at journalism. We got this text
Speaker 1: on a conversation we were having yesterday. Hey, guys, listening
Speaker 1: to yesterday's show. I'm absolutely one of those people who
Speaker 1: didn't vote for Trump in the last election, and I
Speaker 1: still really, really really disliked Trump. But you better believe
Speaker 1: I'm voting for him the next time around. I'm so
Speaker 1: sick of the media and the progressive talking, the shaming
Speaker 1: and the little correct correctness by the other side. We're
Speaker 1: making the point that the New York Times and various
Speaker 1: other news outlets that think they're helping get Trump out
Speaker 1: of office, are damaging him, are gonna get him reelected.
Speaker 1: How did they not get that? Now? It's it is
Speaker 1: utterly amazing, the becoming an activist organ In our editorial
Speaker 1: and The Examiner today we say that, um, it was
Speaker 1: prosecutorial misconduct by the New York Times to run that piece,
Speaker 1: and we call them prosecutors because that's how they're behaving.
Speaker 1: They're behaving like lawless prosecutors instead of like sober journalists,
Speaker 1: and that this undermines their ability to do anything. There
Speaker 1: are people to New York Times who say what we
Speaker 1: need to do is show people the facts to convince
Speaker 1: them of X, Y and Z, and some of them
Speaker 1: I agree with. You know, I think I actually think
Speaker 1: that human activity is contributing to climate change, and the
Speaker 1: New York Times wants to convince people of that. But
Speaker 1: you know what, anytime I've ever said, hey, actually, did
Speaker 1: you see that story in at CNN, or did you
Speaker 1: see that story at New York Times? And it's a
Speaker 1: story I know is true because I've done the work.
Speaker 1: I've had all my conservative or even center friends say,
Speaker 1: oh God, come on, You're going to trust those guys,
Speaker 1: and I have to say, well, no, you can't. You
Speaker 1: can't take them on authority. But this one, please, this,
Speaker 1: this one is true. Just frittering away their ability to
Speaker 1: inform or convince people of anything. I think most of
Speaker 1: the journalism the New York Times does is good, but
Speaker 1: they do not have standards when it comes to things
Speaker 1: that really really matter to them, such as defeating Donald
Speaker 1: Trump or saving Roe v. Wade. If those are on
Speaker 1: the table, it's any means necessary to accomplish what they
Speaker 1: want to accomplish. Boy Well, said Tim Carney, commentary editor
Speaker 1: the Washington Examiner. Two things, Tim, Number One, we will
Speaker 1: have links posted and Armstrong and getty dot com so
Speaker 1: folks can find those articles you're recommended very easily. Secondly,
Speaker 1: as I look at the New York Times Explainer piece
Speaker 1: on their website this morning, off to the side they're
Speaker 1: promoting it's a new morning for Jennifer Aniston, do you
Speaker 1: have anything about Jennifer Aniston in the Examiner today too.
Speaker 1: We will try to catch up to the Times on
Speaker 1: the Jennifer Aniston b. We're not there yet, I'm afraid.
Speaker 1: Oh that's disappointing. Tim Carney, Tim, it's always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: Thanks a million, Thank you, good to talk. Thanks are
Speaker 1: strong and Jetty