Doocy: What do you make of "The
New York Times" being caught,
not only in having to apologize
for an inappropriate tweet,
but also in an editorial note
fixed on this news analysis
that said, essentially, "You
know what, we left out the fact
that the woman involved in this story
does not remember this story?"
Shapiro: I would say
that it's unbelievable,
except it's insanely believable.
Every time "The New York
Times" makes a mistake,
it is always in the direction of somebody
on the right getting clocked,
and that's particularly
true in the Kavanaugh story.
There is a much
bigger story in that book
that was not reported
by "The New York Times,"
namely that Leland Kaiser,
who is the best friend
of Christine Blasey Ford,
said she didn't believe Ford's story
and was pressured by Ford's allies
to change her story.
"The New York Times" didn't
see fit to report that.
They buried this particular story
in their news analysis section
so they didn't have to run
it through the news section.
They actually removed
the line that said
that the alleged victim didn't remember
the incident in question
and then replaced it later.
That's not just bad journalism.
That's not botchery.
That's purposeful at that point.
Kilmeade: Let's see them try to
explain themselves out of this.
The two writers of
the book talked about
what they wrote for the opinion
section of the newspaper
and how it was edited out.
See if you buy this.
Kelly: There was
no desire to withhold
important information
from our readers.
We have all of it in the book.
During the editing process
there was an oversight,
and this key detail about the
fact that the woman herself
has told friends she doesn't remember it
and has not wanted to talk about it
got cut. It was an oversight.
We're a team at "The New York Times."
We have processes in place.
Pogrebin: I think, actually,
the way it happened
was that the editors were
concerned about naming her.
In that sentence that had her name,
it also had that she doesn't remember it.
We also took out the fact
that she didn't remember it.
Earhardt: Is there even a victim?
She doesn't remember it.
Shapiro: No, there is no story here.
This prompted editorials
from "The New York Times"
and the "Washington Post"
talking about how the FBI
was engaged in
a "sham investigation"
based on them not
investigating an allegation
that has no alleged victim.
It's insanity.
Kilmeade: Do you buy that explanation?
Shapiro: Of course I don't buy the
explanation. That's not an oversight.
How is it an oversight when
you don't just remove the name,
you remove the key detail
of the entire story?
It's not a detail. That is
the center of the story.
Doocy: The center of the story
was from a man who used
to be an attorney for Bill Clinton.
Shapiro: During the impeachment, yeah.
Doocy: He would not speak to
the authors of the book either
and only spoke through two
other people, who are officials,
and we don't know who they are.
Kilmeade: Do you mean
the "non-partisan" attorney?
That's what they wrote,
a "non-partisan" attorney.
Shapiro: That's right. That's right.
Doocy: ...a non-profit or
something like that.
Shapiro: Exactly.
The whole thing is absurd.
They ignored the real story, but that is
"The New York Times"
New York Times-ing.
