Something is wrong with the New Yorker
Standards, or a lack thereof.
Related highlights:
—
The New Yorker has a problem, and its name is Jane Mayer.
Mayer, a professional peddler of unsubstantiated sleaze, has a banger of a report out this week, alleging Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California is a dementia-addled dotard.
Unsurprisingly, Mayer’s reporting provides exactly zero evidence to back this claim. In fact, the story does not include even one on-the-record source. Instead, the article revolves entirely around the say-so of anonymous congressional “aides” who are almost certainly not qualified to make judgments on the state of the senator’s mental well-being. Yet, judgment they pass, and Mayer, ever a faithful conduit for lurid innuendo and unverified gossip, repeats every single word in her article titled, “Dianne Feinstein’s Missteps Raise a Painful Age Question Among Senate Democrats.”
It is exactly as slimy as it sounds.
“Speaking on background,” Mayer writes, “and with respect for [Feinstein’s] accomplished career, they say her short-term memory has grown so poor that she often forgets she has been briefed on a topic, accusing her staff of failing to do so just after they have.”
Another anonymous source claims the senator is “an incredibly effective human being, but there’s definitely been deterioration in the last year. She’s in a very different mode now.”
“She should have gone out on top in 2018,” says another supposed “aide,” who “continues to admire” the senator, “but who pointed out that many of Feinstein’s peers retired selflessly."
Oh, please. Spare us all the faux-respectful throat-clearing. Just stick the knife in the front like a gentleman.
I want to say Mayer’s latest exclusive surprises me, but, honestly, the lack of ethical standards and journalistic rigor is exactly what we have come to expect from the woman who co-authored what ended up being one of the most egregious hit pieces on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his Senate confirmation hearings.
Remember that?
In Sept. 2018, Mayer and journalist Ronan Farrow co-reported that Kavanaugh had exposed himself to a woman named Deborah Ramirez when they were both in college. Ramirez herself claims she does not quite remember essential details of the incident. The "primary witness" to the alleged act claims he did not see it happen but that he had heard about it from a secondhand source. That supposed secondhand source told Mayer and Farrow that he has no memory of such an incident, or of even hearing or saying anything about it. Farrow and Mayer published their stories anyway, even though they conceded they could not corroborate any of it. Mayer admitted later in an interview with Elle that her “reporting” was done with an eye to establishing "a pattern of similar behavior," not on figuring out whether Ramirez’s tale had any truth to it.
The New Yorker would improve the overall quality of its reporting by a wide margin were it to stop accepting these garbage contributions from Mayer. The woman obviously is not an honest broker. It is clear that her “reporting” serves an ulterior political purpose, whether it is torpedoing the nomination of a possible Supreme Court justice or rehabilitating a disgraced former Democratic senator.
Indeed, reading between the lines, it seems obvious the Feinstein hit piece is a form of political payback from Democratic operatives angry that the California lawmaker failed to block both Kavanaugh and Judge Amy Comey Barrett from the Supreme Court. Left-wing partisans are fed up with their judicial defeats, so they’ve called on a reliably dishonest ally with a byline to help them deal with their Feinstein “problem.” Remember: The senator’s supposed mental decline has been years in the making, according to Mayer’s sources. Yet, we are hearing about it only now following the confirmation of both Kavanaugh and Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Again, this is expected of Mayer, who clearly does not suffer from moral scruples. But what is the New Yorker’s excuse for publishing her work?
If the New Yorker wants to report the news, then it should report the news. If it wants to run a political PR shop staffed with activists role-playing as reporters, then it should just commit to the act.
Stop pretending to be a respectable and serious news organization. Either be one or don't. The New Yorker’s readers are not nearly as stupid as Mayer and her editors obviously believe they are.