WEBVTT - A Dreadful Effort.  Tim Carney talks to Armstrong & Getty

0:00:01.400 --> 0:00:17.680
<v Speaker 1>The Armstrong and Getty Show. So I still contend the

0:00:17.680 --> 0:00:19.800
<v Speaker 1>biggest story out of this whole Kavanaugh thing is not

0:00:19.880 --> 0:00:21.600
<v Speaker 1>what he did or didn't do it a college party.

0:00:21.600 --> 0:00:23.640
<v Speaker 1>It's where we are with some of our biggest media

0:00:23.640 --> 0:00:27.000
<v Speaker 1>in the world. I you know, Trump likes beating up

0:00:27.000 --> 0:00:29.000
<v Speaker 1>on the New York Times, and I can certainly understand why.

0:00:29.080 --> 0:00:31.120
<v Speaker 1>I want the New York Times to be better. I

0:00:31.160 --> 0:00:33.159
<v Speaker 1>want them to be good. I want them to be

0:00:33.280 --> 0:00:35.159
<v Speaker 1>a place that the whole world can go to and

0:00:35.200 --> 0:00:39.280
<v Speaker 1>think you're going to get some serious, solid journalism that's

0:00:39.360 --> 0:00:41.239
<v Speaker 1>just in pursuit of the truth. And man, did they

0:00:41.240 --> 0:00:43.879
<v Speaker 1>do damage to that over the weekend. I would agree completely.

0:00:43.960 --> 0:00:47.280
<v Speaker 1>The Washington Examiner, on the other hand, still rock steady

0:00:47.440 --> 0:00:50.360
<v Speaker 1>and Tim Carney is the commentary editor for The Washington Examiner,

0:00:50.400 --> 0:00:52.560
<v Speaker 1>also the author of what sounds like a really really

0:00:52.600 --> 0:00:57.720
<v Speaker 1>interesting book, Alienated America. Why some places thrive while others collapse.

0:00:58.040 --> 0:01:00.880
<v Speaker 1>That sounds like a future podcast, Tim, How are you

0:01:02.080 --> 0:01:04.440
<v Speaker 1>doing well? Thanks for having me pleasure. I want to

0:01:04.480 --> 0:01:06.400
<v Speaker 1>read one of your tweets back at you the last

0:01:06.440 --> 0:01:08.600
<v Speaker 1>forty eight hours, and you wrote this yesterday. The last

0:01:08.680 --> 0:01:10.640
<v Speaker 1>forty eight hours have had one of the most flagrant

0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:13.320
<v Speaker 1>failures of elite media, and there's Zeroly and then there

0:01:13.400 --> 0:01:17.600
<v Speaker 1>is nearly zero visible introspection about this. How bad was

0:01:17.720 --> 0:01:20.240
<v Speaker 1>what the New York Times did From a journalistic standpoint,

0:01:20.920 --> 0:01:24.320
<v Speaker 1>It was dreadful because it was obviously intentional. The two

0:01:24.400 --> 0:01:27.080
<v Speaker 1>bits of information that they left out would have each

0:01:27.120 --> 0:01:30.319
<v Speaker 1>taken about eight words to include. Number one, After you

0:01:30.400 --> 0:01:33.560
<v Speaker 1>say that Brett Kavanov has been accused of the sexually

0:01:33.560 --> 0:01:37.039
<v Speaker 1>assaulting a woman, maybe say the woman says she has

0:01:37.080 --> 0:01:39.880
<v Speaker 1>no memory of it ever happening. That's not a lot

0:01:39.880 --> 0:01:42.959
<v Speaker 1>of words, and it dramatically changes the story. And then

0:01:43.319 --> 0:01:46.520
<v Speaker 1>when you are introducing the guy who's making the accusation,

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:49.280
<v Speaker 1>and you, uh, you have a little passage where you

0:01:49.320 --> 0:01:52.880
<v Speaker 1>get to describe who this guy, Max Sire is. You

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:56.400
<v Speaker 1>maybe say he is a longtime Democratic operative and lawyer

0:01:56.440 --> 0:02:00.440
<v Speaker 1>for Bill Clinton. Again, that's about ten words. No, they

0:02:00.480 --> 0:02:04.320
<v Speaker 1>said and said he is a executive at a nonprofit.

0:02:04.400 --> 0:02:06.520
<v Speaker 1>As soon as I saw those words, I actually read

0:02:06.520 --> 0:02:09.840
<v Speaker 1>this article Saturday night thinking oh, do they have something

0:02:09.840 --> 0:02:12.160
<v Speaker 1>at him? And as soon as I saw executive and nonprofit,

0:02:12.240 --> 0:02:15.200
<v Speaker 1>I said, ah, ten seconds of Google will turn up

0:02:15.240 --> 0:02:18.320
<v Speaker 1>who this guy is. But here's the problem regular readers

0:02:18.520 --> 0:02:21.400
<v Speaker 1>don't have that don't have the instincts, the ability. They

0:02:21.400 --> 0:02:24.400
<v Speaker 1>shouldn't have to do all the extra work to figure

0:02:24.400 --> 0:02:28.280
<v Speaker 1>out if I got the time. I've got the time

0:02:28.360 --> 0:02:30.040
<v Speaker 1>to look it up when I'm reading an article, but

0:02:30.080 --> 0:02:32.880
<v Speaker 1>I just don't feel like I should have to check

0:02:33.000 --> 0:02:35.920
<v Speaker 1>and see if Yeah. The journalists are supposed to do

0:02:35.960 --> 0:02:38.119
<v Speaker 1>the work for the reader, but instead they're leaving every

0:02:38.160 --> 0:02:39.800
<v Speaker 1>This is my in laws were telling me over the

0:02:39.800 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 1>weekend before this story even came out. My problem is

0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:45.200
<v Speaker 1>I feel like I have to do at least half

0:02:45.200 --> 0:02:48.560
<v Speaker 1>an hour of research after every article. Everything that's the

0:02:48.600 --> 0:02:50.400
<v Speaker 1>modern world. We've been talking about that for a long time.

0:02:50.440 --> 0:02:51.919
<v Speaker 1>You have to do homework. If you want to take

0:02:51.919 --> 0:02:54.239
<v Speaker 1>in news now from any side, you have to like, okay,

0:02:54.360 --> 0:02:56.399
<v Speaker 1>I need to cross verify that. So if anybody else

0:02:56.480 --> 0:02:59.200
<v Speaker 1>is saying this, or if they're tough left out, it's crazy, right.

0:02:59.240 --> 0:03:01.079
<v Speaker 1>And so you end up with in America with two

0:03:01.120 --> 0:03:05.440
<v Speaker 1>completely different you know, hemispheres of of experience and what

0:03:05.480 --> 0:03:08.480
<v Speaker 1>they think is knowledge because they just they read different

0:03:08.639 --> 0:03:12.480
<v Speaker 1>things in different places and formed completely different worldviews. Would

0:03:12.480 --> 0:03:15.680
<v Speaker 1>it be fair Tim Carney to say that the bulk

0:03:15.720 --> 0:03:20.840
<v Speaker 1>of the article was about an allegation that other people

0:03:21.240 --> 0:03:27.440
<v Speaker 1>said this Clinton operative had talked about and he was

0:03:27.560 --> 0:03:32.960
<v Speaker 1>simply there, and this is this is roughly third hand

0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:36.400
<v Speaker 1>or is it fourth yea. So those two different main

0:03:36.560 --> 0:03:40.200
<v Speaker 1>accusations in the New York Times piece. One of them

0:03:40.400 --> 0:03:45.240
<v Speaker 1>is the supposed corroboration of the Debora ramire As accusation

0:03:45.680 --> 0:03:49.840
<v Speaker 1>that came out during the confirmation hearings. And the authors

0:03:49.880 --> 0:03:54.600
<v Speaker 1>say that this is more corroborated than the main accusation,

0:03:54.640 --> 0:03:57.360
<v Speaker 1>the Christine Blasi Ford, and I agree that this one

0:03:57.480 --> 0:04:00.600
<v Speaker 1>is more corroborated the Debora Ramiras one. In the Christine

0:04:00.600 --> 0:04:04.040
<v Speaker 1>Blasi Ford all four people who were supposedly there have

0:04:04.520 --> 0:04:07.400
<v Speaker 1>said they have no memory that happening or didn't happen

0:04:07.600 --> 0:04:10.880
<v Speaker 1>in the Debora Ramira's accusation. After this book is written,

0:04:11.160 --> 0:04:14.640
<v Speaker 1>all three people who were supposedly there have said it

0:04:14.680 --> 0:04:17.880
<v Speaker 1>didn't happen and they would remember it happening. So being

0:04:17.880 --> 0:04:23.239
<v Speaker 1>denied by only three possible witnesses a little less uncorroborated

0:04:23.440 --> 0:04:25.720
<v Speaker 1>than being denied by all four the Debora ramires one.

0:04:25.960 --> 0:04:28.920
<v Speaker 1>I recommend you go and check out on our website

0:04:28.920 --> 0:04:31.279
<v Speaker 1>at the Examiner. Tianna Lowe wrote a piece called the

0:04:31.279 --> 0:04:35.240
<v Speaker 1>Debora Ramires corroboration that wasn't and then UM, in a

0:04:35.440 --> 0:04:38.279
<v Speaker 1>slightly different style Byron York, went ahead and went through

0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:43.560
<v Speaker 1>all seven people UM supposedly corroborating that, and UM, none

0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:47.080
<v Speaker 1>of them actually heard none of them even claimed that

0:04:47.120 --> 0:04:49.720
<v Speaker 1>they heard Kavanaugh's name connected to it. And the one

0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:53.880
<v Speaker 1>who did heard about it from somebody else who wasn't

0:04:54.000 --> 0:04:57.240
<v Speaker 1>even there. He's now saying that he did it, so

0:04:57.320 --> 0:05:00.800
<v Speaker 1>that that was the Ramira's accusation. The Max dire accusation

0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:02.880
<v Speaker 1>is a brand new one. There is one source, he's

0:05:02.880 --> 0:05:05.240
<v Speaker 1>a Democratic operative, a fact the New York Times hit

0:05:05.320 --> 0:05:09.159
<v Speaker 1>from us UM, and there's there's no other corroboration of

0:05:09.160 --> 0:05:12.400
<v Speaker 1>this story. And the supposed victim denies that it happened.

0:05:12.560 --> 0:05:15.760
<v Speaker 1>We're talking with Tim Carney, commentary editor for the Washington Examiner,

0:05:16.000 --> 0:05:18.200
<v Speaker 1>again on the big picture of what this does to

0:05:18.440 --> 0:05:20.520
<v Speaker 1>the way people look at journalism. We got this text

0:05:21.839 --> 0:05:24.119
<v Speaker 1>on a conversation we were having yesterday. Hey, guys, listening

0:05:24.120 --> 0:05:26.640
<v Speaker 1>to yesterday's show. I'm absolutely one of those people who

0:05:26.680 --> 0:05:29.400
<v Speaker 1>didn't vote for Trump in the last election, and I

0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:32.160
<v Speaker 1>still really, really really disliked Trump. But you better believe

0:05:32.200 --> 0:05:34.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm voting for him the next time around. I'm so

0:05:34.000 --> 0:05:36.160
<v Speaker 1>sick of the media and the progressive talking, the shaming

0:05:36.200 --> 0:05:38.760
<v Speaker 1>and the little correct correctness by the other side. We're

0:05:38.760 --> 0:05:41.719
<v Speaker 1>making the point that the New York Times and various

0:05:41.720 --> 0:05:44.279
<v Speaker 1>other news outlets that think they're helping get Trump out

0:05:44.279 --> 0:05:46.960
<v Speaker 1>of office, are damaging him, are gonna get him reelected.

0:05:46.960 --> 0:05:50.960
<v Speaker 1>How did they not get that? Now? It's it is

0:05:51.080 --> 0:05:57.359
<v Speaker 1>utterly amazing, the becoming an activist organ In our editorial

0:05:57.440 --> 0:05:59.880
<v Speaker 1>and The Examiner today we say that, um, it was

0:06:00.000 --> 0:06:03.719
<v Speaker 1>prosecutorial misconduct by the New York Times to run that piece,

0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:06.760
<v Speaker 1>and we call them prosecutors because that's how they're behaving.

0:06:07.000 --> 0:06:11.560
<v Speaker 1>They're behaving like lawless prosecutors instead of like sober journalists,

0:06:11.800 --> 0:06:16.280
<v Speaker 1>and that this undermines their ability to do anything. There

0:06:16.320 --> 0:06:18.839
<v Speaker 1>are people to New York Times who say what we

0:06:18.920 --> 0:06:21.440
<v Speaker 1>need to do is show people the facts to convince

0:06:21.520 --> 0:06:23.880
<v Speaker 1>them of X, Y and Z, and some of them

0:06:23.960 --> 0:06:26.160
<v Speaker 1>I agree with. You know, I think I actually think

0:06:26.160 --> 0:06:30.159
<v Speaker 1>that human activity is contributing to climate change, and the

0:06:30.160 --> 0:06:32.760
<v Speaker 1>New York Times wants to convince people of that. But

0:06:32.839 --> 0:06:36.000
<v Speaker 1>you know what, anytime I've ever said, hey, actually, did

0:06:36.000 --> 0:06:38.280
<v Speaker 1>you see that story in at CNN, or did you

0:06:38.320 --> 0:06:39.920
<v Speaker 1>see that story at New York Times? And it's a

0:06:39.960 --> 0:06:42.840
<v Speaker 1>story I know is true because I've done the work.

0:06:42.880 --> 0:06:46.640
<v Speaker 1>I've had all my conservative or even center friends say,

0:06:46.640 --> 0:06:49.080
<v Speaker 1>oh God, come on, You're going to trust those guys,

0:06:49.600 --> 0:06:51.440
<v Speaker 1>and I have to say, well, no, you can't. You

0:06:51.440 --> 0:06:53.840
<v Speaker 1>can't take them on authority. But this one, please, this,

0:06:54.040 --> 0:06:58.520
<v Speaker 1>this one is true. Just frittering away their ability to

0:06:59.279 --> 0:07:02.440
<v Speaker 1>inform or convince people of anything. I think most of

0:07:02.480 --> 0:07:04.599
<v Speaker 1>the journalism the New York Times does is good, but

0:07:05.200 --> 0:07:08.000
<v Speaker 1>they do not have standards when it comes to things

0:07:08.040 --> 0:07:12.119
<v Speaker 1>that really really matter to them, such as defeating Donald

0:07:12.160 --> 0:07:15.040
<v Speaker 1>Trump or saving Roe v. Wade. If those are on

0:07:15.080 --> 0:07:18.440
<v Speaker 1>the table, it's any means necessary to accomplish what they

0:07:18.440 --> 0:07:21.320
<v Speaker 1>want to accomplish. Boy Well, said Tim Carney, commentary editor

0:07:21.360 --> 0:07:23.920
<v Speaker 1>the Washington Examiner. Two things, Tim, Number One, we will

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:26.960
<v Speaker 1>have links posted and Armstrong and getty dot com so

0:07:27.040 --> 0:07:30.520
<v Speaker 1>folks can find those articles you're recommended very easily. Secondly,

0:07:30.560 --> 0:07:33.320
<v Speaker 1>as I look at the New York Times Explainer piece

0:07:33.840 --> 0:07:36.240
<v Speaker 1>on their website this morning, off to the side they're

0:07:36.280 --> 0:07:39.280
<v Speaker 1>promoting it's a new morning for Jennifer Aniston, do you

0:07:39.320 --> 0:07:42.280
<v Speaker 1>have anything about Jennifer Aniston in the Examiner today too.

0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:45.440
<v Speaker 1>We will try to catch up to the Times on

0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:48.160
<v Speaker 1>the Jennifer Aniston b. We're not there yet, I'm afraid.

0:07:48.240 --> 0:07:51.280
<v Speaker 1>Oh that's disappointing. Tim Carney, Tim, it's always a pleasure.

0:07:51.280 --> 0:07:54.840
<v Speaker 1>Thanks a million, Thank you, good to talk. Thanks are

0:07:54.960 --> 0:07:56.160
<v Speaker 1>strong and Jetty