NBC News' interview Monday with a woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of participating in teenage gang rapes in the 1980s has Kavanaugh supporters and media critics alike asking what happened to the network's journalism standards.
Kavanaugh has been buffeted by claims of bad behavior in high school and college, with three women stepping forward to accuse him of sexual misconduct. But questions have been raised about the veracity of each claim, as well as at least two others lodged anonymously. Media outlets, including The New York Times, have wrestled with the thorny issue of reporting on uncorroborated allegations, but NBC's report noted up-front that Julie Swetnick's claims could not be substantiated and that she had changed her story.
"[NBC] has not been able to independently verify [Swetnick's] claims," reporter Kate Snow said by way of introducing an exclusive interview with Swetnick that aired Monday evening on MSNBC's "The Beat with Ari Melber." Snow also noted that of the four potential corroborating witnesses Swetnick referred them to, one had no such knowledge, one was dead and two could not be located.
Still, the network aired the interview, in which Swetnick, who is represented by controversial attorney Michael Avenatti, said she saw a teenaged Kavanaugh "paw on girls" and "[touch] them in private parts" at parties as a high school student. She stopped short of claiming that the now 53-year-old jurist drugged or sexually assaulted her or other women.
Kavanaugh's confirmation has been held up since Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee disclosed the claim of another woman, Christine Ford, that Kavanaugh forcibly groped her at a party in the early 1980s. Another woman, Deborah Ramirez, came forward to claim Kavanaugh exposed himself to her a few years later while both were attending college at Yale. The FBI is looking into those cases ahead of an expected Senate confirmation vote, but is believed not to be probing Swetnick's claims.
Cornell Law School professor and Legal Insurrection founder William Jacobson told Fox News that “outlets like NBC News provide the fuel that feeds the anti-Kavanaugh firestorm” that is currently sweeping the mainstream media.
"That fuel often is based on misleading reporting by biased reporters who appear more interested in the political outcome than getting the facts right,” Jacobson said. “Corrections to false Kavanaugh stories frequently take the form of stealth edits, rather than formal corrections. This permits the original false narrative to continue unimpeded.”
DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News that “NBC's decision to give a platform to Swetnick is hard to defend within a journalism standards framework” and is another example of the media chaos that has surrounded the Kavanaugh news cycle.
“Too much of the media coverage regarding the Kavanaugh confirmation has failed to provide measured and reasoned public assessment, but instead has plunged into hyping the emotional and confrontational aspects of the story. Part of this approach is to shamelessly generate ratings and clicks, but part of this comes off as taking sides and pushing a position,” McCall said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has emerged as Kavanaugh's most vocal backer in the Senate, did not mince words in the aftermath of NBC's report.
“They’ve been a co-conspirator in the destruction of Kavanaugh, from my point of view,” Graham told Fox News' Sean Hannity. “Their journalistic integrity has been destroyed over this case.”
Last month, NBC also published a story from an anonymous fourth accuser, based on an anonymous letter, which was also widely panned by journalism critics.
Media Research Center Vice President Dan Gainor pointed out that President Trump has called the press “part of the Democrat Party” in the past.
“Given how horribly biased the press attacks have been on Kavanaugh, it’s impossible to argue Trump is wrong,” Gainor told Fox News. “Journalists are desperate not to cover news, but to be news or to set the news agenda. That’s not journalism. It’s activism and it’s why there trust in the news continues to decline.”
NBC News is not the only mainstream media outlet that seems to stretch its journalistic principles to discredit Kavanaugh. The New York Times is under fire after staffer writer Emily Bazelon bylined a story detailing a 1985 incident when Kavanaugh may have thrown ice at someone following a concert. Kavanaugh was not arrested for the incident after police spoke with him. The story quickly became a talking point with many media members referring to it as a “bar fight.”
What the Times didn’t disclose was the fact that Bazelon has openly spoken out against Kavanaugh in the past. The paper eventually admitted that Bazelon should not have been assigned to the story, but stood the report.
“As a @YaleLawSch grad & lecturer, I strongly disassociate myself from tonight’s praise of Brett Kavanaugh. With respect, he’s a 5th vote for a hard-right turn on voting rights and so much more that will harm the democratic process & prevent a more equal society,” Bazelon tweeted back in July.
University of North Carolina ethics guru Lois Boynton told Fox News that Bazelon’s involvement created “a perception of a conflict of interest for the reporter, as well as colleagues at the paper” and the “reputation overall” of the Times.
Washington Post White House Bureau Chief Phillip Rucker has been forced to clarify misleading tweets about Kavanaugh twice in recent memory. First Rucker made it seems like Kavanaugh was “waving a flag woven from women’s underwear” and then he falsely stated the nominee lied under oath about his drinking habits.
“These aren’t just dumb errors this guy keeps making,” Fox News contributor Stephen Miller tweeted after noticing the pair of gaffes.
Rucker did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Last month, The New Yorker published a report that Kavanaugh may have exposed himself to a college classmate decades ago which was widely condemned by media critics. National Review editor Charles C.W. Cooke penned a column calling the piece “grossly irresponsible” and New York Post columnist Karol Markowicz called it a ‘terrible piece of journalism.”
Ironically, The New York Times admitted it couldn't find anyone with firsthand knowledge of the claim and passed on the story as a result.
Examples of journalists lowering their standards on Kavanaugh stories include:
- NBC News airing an unverified account of alleged sexual assault.
- NBC News publishing an unconfirmed story based on an anonymous email.
- A widely criticized story in The New Yorker regarding the claim by Ramirez.
- The New York Times' side-by-side front page images following the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
- The Washington Post’s White House Bureau Chief sending inaccurate tweets.
- A Washington Post columnist inaccurately portraying the woman selected by Republicans to assist with the hearing as a Joe Arpaio surrogate.
“The result of this mediated chaos and advocacy is to create the appearance or perhaps confirm the reality that NBC, the Times, and some other outlets are pushing a perspective more than reporting news that is fact-based and verifiable,” McCall said.
McCall explained that there is “plenty of room for analysis and commentary, but it needs to be clearly labeled and separated” from the actual news accounts.
“That is not happening with the Kavanaugh coverage,” he said. “The Kavanaugh news frenzy demonstrates much of what the public finds distasteful about how the media function today. It is not helpful in covering the complexities of this particular story and it is not helpful in helping our nation overcome its current polarization.”
Fox News' Samuel Chamberlain and Gregg Re contributed to this report.
Trending
Fox News Entertainment
Get a daily look at the top news in music, movies, television and more in the entertainment industry.
By entering your email and clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to the Fox News Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content and promotional communications from Fox News. You understand that you can opt-out at any time.