"Thursday night I wrote a post about something I saw on one of the shows on MSNBC.
It was about a New York Times reporter, Megan Twohey, defining what corroboration means to the Times.
Here's that exchange:
TWOHEY: You know, I think just back to the issue of accountability and how things are framed, how Trump frames them, how other people are framing them in the context of the allegations against Kavanaugh, specifically the Blasey Ford, allegation against her, you kept hearing today that there`s no corroboration, there`s no corroboration, and as a reporter who`s done a lot of coverage of allegations of sexual misconduct, I can say that when it comes to putting these allegations in the paper, there were a lot of things that corroborated her story. There were, you know, the people who – the parties say they don`t remember that, but, you know, they don`t remember the party [...]
HAYES: Right.
TWOHEY: [...] that many years ago. But, you know, in her testimony, in her account to The Washington Post she has said that she told her therapist that there are medical records in – from 2012 or 2013, I can`t be sure, before Kavanaugh was even nominated, in which she sort of stepped forward and said this happened to me.
There are many people that she`s told.
As I understand it, the FBI didn't even accept those medical records.
As I understand it, the FBI didn't even accept those medical records.
Notice that Twohey affirmatively states: "there were a lot of things that corroborated her story."
What was Twohey's evidence of corroboration?
That is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority" that states a thing is true simply because it is offered by someone in a position of authority - but just reporting on incidents of sexual assault does not make you an arbiter of truth.
- Next, she states that there were people at the party - even though "they don`t remember the party that many years ago."
- Next, Blasey Ford said "...said that she told her therapist that there are medical records in – from 2012 or 2013."
- OK, so she said she told her therapist about something she things she remembered from 30 years in the past.
- Next, the reporter cites the therapist's records that back it all up but laments "the FBI didn't even accept those medical records." Well, the Senate Judiciary demanded those records be turned over three times and Ford's lawyers refused - and even if they had been turned over, all those would represent are Ford's own words - the therapist had no knowledge of the supposed event.
- Next, we get that "There are many people that she`s told." So she told many people - but Blasey Ford herself said that she only told her therapist and her husband before she decided to send a letter to her state representative, Anna Eshoo this year - 36 years after the alleged incident and the number of people she told has no bearing on whether what she told them is the truth. A lie doesn't become true if you just tell it to a lot of people.
But when you really strip this down, this all of this "corroboration" goes back to one point - Blasey Ford herself.
This is a NYT reporter was basing her judgement of corroboration on two things:
This is a NYT reporter was basing her judgement of corroboration on two things:
- 1) the reporter's belief that she is an authority in such matters and
- 2) the accuser telling people about her accusation.
- [kəˌräbəˈrāSH(ə)n]
Far from "there were a lot of things that corroborated her story", there was nothing that did.
No people remembered the party, there was nothing here save the claims of one person based on her own words.
Since corroboration requires at least one other source independent of the accuser, one cannot corroborate themselves..."
No comments:
Post a Comment