Latest Post

How to Optimize Your Paid Marketing For Maximum ROI – Best Real Estate Websites for Agents and Brokers How to Triumph Over Budget Cuts and Prove Your Marketing ROI – c3centricity HOW TO MAKE DOG SHAMPOO

A sensible, objective, facility media would have invested much more time than it has in diving into Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s background and trustworthiness, and her veracity under oath– particularly if they think it relevant to endlessly parse Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook, jokey memos about Beach Week, and collegiate throwing of ice from a barroom glass.Granted, there

is an essential line, not to be crossed, in between logical evaluation of relevant information and, on the other hand, blaming or bullying the putative victim. Yet the evaluation needs to be done. The accused can not be automatically assumed to be guilty. This isn’t simply a legal concept, but an ethical one. An incorrect allegation, even if it never ever reached a law court, can mess up track records and even lives.Yet the majority of the media has acted as if the only one whose veracity and character are legitimate premises for investigation is the one implicated of heinous acts. It is routine but very real to refute that idiocy by recommendation to the accused Salem witches, the Duke lacrosse team, the University of Virginia fraternity, or the imaginary Tom Robinson in To Eliminate a Mockingbird.In the case of Dr. Ford, numerous of the lines of examination reporters should have pursued– without bias in any case– would include the following: Does she have political or financial motives? She claimed she is” fiercely independent, “however is that actually her record? Any

time a conservative makes any problem about a liberal, the instant assumption, in news leads and headlines, is that the problem is politically encouraged– so why not at least ask the concern here?Does her story about why she went to marital counseling stand analysis? Obviously not. She said the marital stress stemmed from her demanding a”second front

door “because of her fears of another attack– but the 2nd front door really was developed numerous years prior to the therapy, and was utilized as an entrance, apparently, by … get this … the really” couples counselor”included, who used Ford’s own home as the therapist’s place of business.Has she ever, in her life, shown any prior worry of flying before she claimed such a fear as the reason that she required to postpone her hearing? (Response: Obviously no. )Why did she alter her story of an attack in the mid-1980s, when she remained in her late teenagers, to1982, when she was simply 15– and does her tale of “struggling “due to the injury compare with that timeline?(I checked out this question in an earlier column here.)Why did she use so lots of other shifting information, in such brief order, and leave numerous blanks in her story?(Why is it that her memoryis credited as self-evident with regard to Kavanaugh being the criminal, but her manifold confusions of memory are accepted as being irrelevant to the previous question? )Why have not reporters and editors been more thinking about the stunning dichotomy in between Ford’s listing of her long-lasting good friend Leland Ingham Keyser as present at the event, and Keyser’s insistence that she never even understood Kavanaugh and remembers no gathering remotely like it? How could they accept, without concern, Ford’s contention that it is plain for Keyser to forget such an event?( The majority of people would believe that if a girl– Keyser– chose only one female friend to a gathering with older boys both barely understood, and the good friend vanished, leaving Keyser as the only woman there, it would be really unexpected certainly for Keyser not to bear in mind it, especially if the alleged assaulter, Kavanaugh, was as flagrantly intoxicated as Ford stated he was even before the attack.)Why did it take a British, not American, publication to check out Keyser’s status!.?. !? Finally, Ford affirmed quite particularly that she”didn’t talk to anyone during that timeframe besides my counsel,”yet she entered the hearing with her lifelong friend Monica McClean, a 24-year FBI representative, previous spokesperson for anti-Trump district attorney Preet Bharara,

whose house in Rehoboth Beach, Del., Ford may have been going to as she was making her reports to Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Should not comprehensive reporters be asking what role McLean played in all this, whether indeed Ford was remaining at her home, and if McLean assisted line her up with attorneys and the polygraph expert?The point here is not to say for particular that Ford has a dodgy memory, much less that she is a phony. The point is that these concerns are all not just appropriate but obvious ones to ask– yet the very same publications tracking down non-arrests for ice-throwing can’t seem to be bothered to track down these facts with direct, not indirect, bearing upon the

dependability of her claims.This is journalistic malpractice, born of extreme political and cultural bias. These journalistic sins of omission are damning, and untenable.