Another Smoking Gun: The Television News Blackout Of Tara Reade

New York Times media reporter Ben Smith bought back a smidgen of the paper’s shredded credibility by authoring a relatively—for the Times—thorough article exploring the phenomenon of TV news shows declining to interview Tara Reade. The problem is that there is good reason to question Smith’s sincerity. His query is like asking why all those supposedly #MeToo-supporting Democratics who condemned Brett Kavanaugh are endorsing Biden. Gee, what a mystery! What could explain it?

Well, not completely. TV networks make their revenue on ratings. That a Reade interview  would attract viewers is no-brainer, so why hasn’t there been a rush to grab her first? The answer to that question, which Smith treats as completely confounding, is clear–res ipsa loquitur, in fact—but it is a topic of widespread denial, rising to the status of gaslighting. Journalists, as well as the organizations they work for, are more committed to allying themselves with the Left than they are to practicing ethical journalism, or even making money. Sherlock Holmes’ formula applies: when you have eliminated every other explanation for a phenomenon, the one remaining, however unlikely, has to be the correct one. Smith compares the lack of interest in Reade with the way the news media treated Juanita Broaddrick, Bill Clinton’s alleged rape victim. It’s not a bad comparison, except it wasn’t a mystery why Broaddrick was ignored at the time either. The mainstream news media supported Bill Clinton, and he was popular. TV journalists were less concerned about finding and reporting the truth than they were with getting Clinton through a crisis. Smith writes, “The treatment of Mr. Clinton’s accusers by the Democratic Party and the media alike is one of the original sins that led to today’s divided, partisan news environment.” That’s correct, but the mainstream media’s handling of that story was an exception then. Today it is pretty close to the rule. (In another article in the same edition, the Times sneers that “trying to undermine the credibility of the news media is central to [Trump’s] re-election efforts.”  That’s exac tly right. Fortunately for the President, the news media is doing a great job undermining its own credibility.

Other notes:

  • Finally, she was booked for an interview on Fox News. I can’t help thinking this was part of the plan. If Fox breaks the embargo, her accusation becomes a “conservative media story” and Fox News propaganda. Conceivably, this explains why Fox was so tardy in interviewing her. News organizations should be reporting, not strategizing.

If that was Fox’s motivation, that’s unethical too.

  • Smith tries to blame the pandemic for Reade being ignored. That’s hilarious; everyone is desperate for substantive news that isn’t about the virus. The lock-down has reduced news of all kinds: no sports, fewer violent crimes, no plane crashed or massive traffic accidents. A credible accusation of rape against a Presidential candidate should cause a media feeding frenzy.

“Representatives for CNN and MSNBC declined to explain why they haven’t booked a woman who is, whether you believe her or not, one of the few newsmakers right now who could cut through the pandemic,” writes Smith. At the risk of repeating myself, Gee, what a mystery! What could explain it?

  • It’s very possible that seeing Reade will make some viewers less likely to believe her, even if her answers to questions seem believable. She 30 years older now; many people won’t be able to imagine the middle-age woman Reade is now as someone a married U.S. Senator would  target for a sexual assault.

An infamous case in the District of Columbia many years ago involved a 12-year old girl who was the victim in an alleged sexual abuse case. The trial was delayed for three years, during which time the girl had grown from 5 feet, 2 inches tall  to 5′ 8″, voluptuous and a believable as 21. Her lawyer also stupidly allowed her to wear make-up and clothing that guaranteed the jury would believe the defendant’s “I didn’t know she was a child’ defense. The defendant was acquitted.

The tide is turning, however. The New York Times editorial today calls for an investigation of Reade’s claims. That’s more than Broaddrick ever got.

19 thoughts on “Another Smoking Gun: The Television News Blackout Of Tara Reade

  1. “Journalists, as well as the organizations they work for, are more committed to allying themselves with the Left than they are to practicing ethical journalism, or even making money.” Exactly.

    They are all getting paid. So where does their money come from, beyond advertisers, and who funds it? Hmmm let’s guess, it’s fun…Bill Gates, Google gangsters, Jeff Bezos, Apple, Amazon, Facebook…. If I’m right, there’s definitely a connection among them. (And I didn’t even have to mention to Soros.)

    • Yup, this. The biggest corporations, including media giants, donate and raise funds for Democrats. In turn they are subsidized and taken care of in countless ways.

      Note how hard Democrats pushed to include bailouts for “print media” in the coronavirus stimulus package, as just one tiny example.

  2. . Journalists, as well as the organizations they work for, are more committed to allying themselves with the Left than they are to practicing ethical journalism, or even making money.

    Hmm. I wonder if this is really what is animating their decisions in this case.

    I’m more inclined to think that their extraordinary zeal is tied in more to defeating Trump than supporting Democrats, and the two are not necessarily the same thing.

    It goes without saying that, given the choice between the two parties, the media far prefers the Democrats. But if they were given a choice between a non-Trump Republican running for president and Joe Biden, I’m not totally convinced we would’ve had the same level of lock-step decision-making in this story.

    Now, I’m not wedded to this position or sure enough to state it with any real certitude. It just occurs to me that this media blackout is more a symptom of TDS than simple political preference. The left-leaning press are 100% committed to helping get rid of Trump no matter what the price. I suspect they’d be less committed to getting rid of a more conventional Republican politician, although I don’t doubt for a minute they would side with the Left virtually all the time.

    The tide is turning, however. The New York Times editorial today calls for an investigation of Reade’s claims. That’s more than Broaddrick ever got.

    True, but this, too, is calculated. The Times reckons that if they delayed the coverage long enough, people would begin to become fatigued with the “Why isn’t anyone talking about Tara Reade?” The result would be similar to the White House signing unpopular legislation on Friday after the evening news deadlines — effectively burying the story without being able to offer even a proforma defense — “We reported it, just not when the right wing thought we should’ve…”

  3. They wouldn’t give the accusers of Epstein or Weinstein the time of day either, providing cover for both of those predators for years. Both stories would have damaged the Clintons, and both creeps had other powerful friends or associates whom the press relied on (“we might lose access to the royal family!”)

    Our most “credible” news sources are not independent, and it colors their reporting. TV news networks owned by Disney and Universal are repeating CCP propaganda while trying to sell movie and theme park tickets in China. It’s all right out in the open and not enough people care.

  4. On #3: how can the defendant be acquitted if ignorance of age is not a defense? Was this jury nullification?

    • The jury verdict made no sense, in that case, but the conclusion of observers was that the sexually precocious 15 year-old came off like a siren rather than a victim. It was a he said/she said with little other evidence. Observers were convinced that it a littel girl had taken the stand, it would have meant a conviction.

  5. I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist – but I have a hunch that the mainstream media – and at least some players in the Democratic Party – are increasingly convinced that Biden is is buzzard meat for other reasons. If we see this gather some steam, it would open the door to Cuomo (simply because most people, including many in the media, are apparently unaware of how Cuomo’s policies let the virus rip through nursing homes).

    • The Times editorial today has sparked a lot of similar speculation. I have said here from the start that there is no way Biden can be the nominee, and never was. I’m still secure in that assumption, just as I was in the belief that one way or the other, Hillary would never be President.

      • I didn’t listen to the story (was returning from errands), but the NPR show “On the Media” headlined a look at the story this afternoon. For those not familiar, the show would be more accurately named if it was called “On Why Brooke Gladstone and Bob Garfield Loathe Donald Trump.” It’s arguably the most relentlessly left-wing show that NPR airs – and that’s saying something. So if THEY’RE starting to raise flags about Biden, it’s even more of a hint that the fix is in.

        • Are the Clintons back at it? Will Harold Stassen, er, I mean Her HIllaryness ride again? After all, the NYT is the Clinton’s local newspaper. The DNC is sure as hell not going to let the nomination fall to Bernie Sanders. After Bernie, it’s a bunch of gerbils. And as the spring turns into summer, I just don’t think Andrew Cuomo is going to look all that great on his response to the New York Virus.

    • Democracy Now! Ugh. It should be called “Stalinism Now!” That Amy Goodman woman is insufferable. If we were at war, she could be convicted of treason and hung.

      • You’re not exaggerating much. I had a director friend who was a host on Democracy Now! We literally never talked about politics or ideology of any kind. I’d listen to his show and just marvel at how he could say that stuff. He was a great guy.

      • Oh yeah, it’s all pretty weird. But you have to — one has to — expose oneself to all sides. You may find, as I have found, that American populism tends to share some concerns.

        You better hang her . . . before she hangs you!

      • [It is rumored that one individual who posts here used to date Amy Goodman . . . and has been reading Chomsky’s Year 501: The Struggle Continues after-hours and on the sly . . .

        I can’t be sure if this is true. So many lies circulating these days!]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.