In case you thought The New York Times was still a credible source for political news, this may change your mind.
On Saturday, Times’ journalist Maggie Haberman co-authored a blistering smear piece — disguised as news — on Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
By the end of the article, which was subtly titled, “Trump Meets With Hard-Right Group Led by Ginni Thomas,” it would be quite easy to come away with the impression Thomas was a dangerous far-right radical.
Haberman represents the new breed of reporter that wants to get their story up first, facts or no facts.
A perfect example of this was her reaction to the Covington High School student incident, linked to a colleague’s hasty writeup of the incident.
The initial report portrayed the students as a Trump-supporting, racist mob and misconstrued the facts, stating the students were the ones that initiated the confrontation with the Native American protestor.
Like most of the other mainstream media outlets, the Times report focused on the 10-second video clip that went viral rather than taking the time to check out the entire story.
After further research was done, the Times was forced to add a caveat and print an embarrassing follow-up to tell the “fuller picture.”
For once, however, this misreporting could cost the venerable paper millions. A high-profile attorney has already offered to defend the students against Haberman and the Times‘ slanderous reporting.
No Lessons Learned
One would hope both the Times and Haberman would have learned a lesson from the Covington story, but that is not the case here.
In her most recent article, Haberman suggested that Ginni Thomas — “a vocal conservative” — operates on the “fringes” of the Republican party.
The negative overtone was thick enough to cut with a knife as Haberman continued, writing that Thomas had “long been more conservative than her husband, and has often provoked controversy.”
Haberman is yet another left-leaning reporter whose bias is demonstrated in every article she writes.
If the Times had any care for their tattered reputation, they might consider relegating hit pieces like this one to the opinion pages.