The Armstrong and Getty Show. So I still contend the biggest story out of this whole Kavanaugh thing is not what he did or didn't do it a college party. It's where we are with some of our biggest media in the world. I you know, Trump likes beating up on the New York Times, and I can certainly understand why. I want the New York Times to be better. I want them to be good. I want them to be a place that the whole world can go to and think you're going to get some serious, solid journalism that's
just in pursuit of the truth. And man, did they do damage to that over the weekend. I would agree completely. The Washington Examiner, on the other hand, still rock steady and Tim Carney is the commentary editor for The Washington Examiner, also the author of what sounds like a really really interesting book, Alienated America. Why some places thrive while others collapse. That sounds like a future podcast, Tim, How are you
doing well? Thanks for having me pleasure. I want to read one of your tweets back at you the last forty eight hours, and you wrote this yesterday. The last forty eight hours have had one of the most flagrant failures of elite media, and there's Zeroly and then there is nearly zero visible introspection about this. How bad was what the New York Times did From a journalistic standpoint,
It was dreadful because it was obviously intentional. The two bits of information that they left out would have each taken about eight words to include. Number one, After you say that Brett Kavanov has been accused of the sexually assaulting a woman, maybe say the woman says she has no memory of it ever happening. That's not a lot
of words, and it dramatically changes the story. And then when you are introducing the guy who's making the accusation, and you, uh, you have a little passage where you get to describe who this guy, Max Sire is. You maybe say he is a longtime Democratic operative and lawyer for Bill Clinton. Again, that's about ten words. No, they said and said he is a executive at a nonprofit. As soon as I saw those words, I actually read this article Saturday night thinking oh, do they have something
at him? And as soon as I saw executive and nonprofit, I said, ah, ten seconds of Google will turn up who this guy is. But here's the problem regular readers don't have that don't have the instincts, the ability. They shouldn't have to do all the extra work to figure out if I got the time. I've got the time to look it up when I'm reading an article, but I just don't feel like I should have to check
and see if Yeah. The journalists are supposed to do the work for the reader, but instead they're leaving every This is my in laws were telling me over the weekend before this story even came out. My problem is I feel like I have to do at least half an hour of research after every article. Everything that's the modern world. We've been talking about that for a long time. You have to do homework. If you want to take in news now from any side, you have to like, okay,
I need to cross verify that. So if anybody else is saying this, or if they're tough left out, it's crazy, right. And so you end up with in America with two completely different you know, hemispheres of of experience and what they think is knowledge because they just they read different
things in different places and formed completely different worldviews. Would it be fair Tim Carney to say that the bulk of the article was about an allegation that other people said this Clinton operative had talked about and he was simply there, and this is this is roughly third hand or is it fourth yea. So those two different main accusations in the New York Times piece. One of them is the supposed corroboration of the Debora ramire As accusation
that came out during the confirmation hearings. And the authors say that this is more corroborated than the main accusation, the Christine Blasi Ford, and I agree that this one is more corroborated the Debora Ramiras one. In the Christine Blasi Ford all four people who were supposedly there have said they have no memory that happening or didn't happen in the Debora Ramira's accusation. After this book is written, all three people who were supposedly there have said it
didn't happen and they would remember it happening. So being denied by only three possible witnesses a little less uncorroborated than being denied by all four the Debora ramires one. I recommend you go and check out on our website
at the Examiner. Tianna Lowe wrote a piece called the Debora Ramires corroboration that wasn't and then UM, in a slightly different style Byron York, went ahead and went through all seven people UM supposedly corroborating that, and UM, none of them actually heard none of them even claimed that they heard Kavanaugh's name connected to it. And the one who did heard about it from somebody else who wasn't even there. He's now saying that he did it, so
that that was the Ramira's accusation. The Max dire accusation is a brand new one. There is one source, he's a Democratic operative, a fact the New York Times hit from us UM, and there's there's no other corroboration of this story. And the supposed victim denies that it happened. We're talking with Tim Carney, commentary editor for the Washington Examiner, again on the big picture of what this does to the way people look at journalism. We got this text
on a conversation we were having yesterday. Hey, guys, listening to yesterday's show. I'm absolutely one of those people who didn't vote for Trump in the last election, and I still really, really really disliked Trump. But you better believe I'm voting for him the next time around. I'm so sick of the media and the progressive talking, the shaming
and the little correct correctness by the other side. We're making the point that the New York Times and various other news outlets that think they're helping get Trump out of office, are damaging him, are gonna get him reelected.
How did they not get that? Now? It's it is utterly amazing, the becoming an activist organ In our editorial and The Examiner today we say that, um, it was prosecutorial misconduct by the New York Times to run that piece, and we call them prosecutors because that's how they're behaving. They're behaving like lawless prosecutors instead of like sober journalists,
and that this undermines their ability to do anything. There are people to New York Times who say what we need to do is show people the facts to convince them of X, Y and Z, and some of them I agree with. You know, I think I actually think that human activity is contributing to climate change, and the New York Times wants to convince people of that. But you know what, anytime I've ever said, hey, actually, did you see that story in at CNN, or did you
see that story at New York Times? And it's a story I know is true because I've done the work. I've had all my conservative or even center friends say, oh God, come on, You're going to trust those guys, and I have to say, well, no, you can't. You can't take them on authority. But this one, please, this, this one is true. Just frittering away their ability to
inform or convince people of anything. I think most of the journalism the New York Times does is good, but they do not have standards when it comes to things that really really matter to them, such as defeating Donald Trump or saving Roe v. Wade. If those are on the table, it's any means necessary to accomplish what they want to accomplish. Boy Well, said Tim Carney, commentary editor
the Washington Examiner. Two things, Tim, Number One, we will have links posted and Armstrong and getty dot com so folks can find those articles you're recommended very easily. Secondly, as I look at the New York Times Explainer piece on their website this morning, off to the side they're promoting it's a new morning for Jennifer Aniston, do you have anything about Jennifer Aniston in the Examiner today too.
We will try to catch up to the Times on the Jennifer Aniston b. We're not there yet, I'm afraid. Oh that's disappointing. Tim Carney, Tim, it's always a pleasure. Thanks a million, Thank you, good to talk. Thanks are strong and Jetty