"Tends to dissemble," Times says: Yesterday, under cover of mayhem, the New York Times ran a lengthy front-page report concerning Tara Reade.
In the understatement of the century, three Times reporters say this:
RUTENBERG, SAUL AND LERER (6/1/20): In many ways, The Times’s findings comport with the autobiography Ms. Reade, now 56, has rendered in cinematic detail across blog posts, online essays and court statements. But in the dramatic retelling of her life story she has also shown a tendency to embellish—a role as a movie extra is presented as a break; her title of “staff assistant” with clerical responsibilities in Mr. Biden’s office becomes “legislative assistant” when his shepherding of the Violence Against Women Act is an asset for her expert-witness testimony in court.At this point, saying that Reade has displayed "a tendency to embellish" is akin to saying that swordfish have a tendency to be found at various spots in the ocean.
In our view, people who "have [fairly obvious] problems" shouldn't be trashed for that fact. But the Times records examples of Reade's "embellishing" which go on and on and on and on, as have other news orgs which have explored the outlines of her life.
By now, you'd have to be crazy to think of Reade as someone whose word a person can trust. Having said that, where does someone like Biden go to get his reputation back? And when will Professors Mann and Hirshman be asked to explain what they think of their latest truth-teller now?
The answer to that last question is simple. The professors will never be asked, and they'll never be criticized or critiqued for their knee-jerk insistence that Reade's claim about Biden should be believed. At this point, the higher-end liberal world will simply sidle away from Reade, and everyone will agree to forget how deeply unwise our highest-end academic elites have once again turned out to be.
The Times report goes on and on with accounts from the three million people Reade has duped in the past. Along the way, the three reporters engage in some classic examples of journalistic bad judgment.
Please don't make us discuss them. But by the way, make no mistake:
The next time an accuser comes along to insert herself into a White House campaign, the usual suspects will once again stand in line to insist that we have to believe her.
(If it's plain that she's seeking a massive pay day, we'll dub her a "feminist icon!")
Our tribe is skilled at spotting the lunacy which takes place in the other tribe. We refuse to see our own foolishness, and our own tribe's foolishness is viral, virile and vast.
We're dumb as rocks, and at the same time we're convinced of our tribe's sacred narratives. Nothing will ever cure us of that, and the others can see this about us.
Way back when, Emily Bazelon warned the well-behaved boys with whom she spoke that Reade might turn out to be be a "liar" or that she might "have problems." We're disinclined to savage people who have problems, but the problems of people like Mann and Hirshman will never be going away.
The true beliefs of our truest believers have caused the deaths of people all over the world. They helped elect Bush, then they helped elect Trump. But they are never going to stop, and we dummies will never rebuke them.
Go ahead—read the report. It goes on for quite a long time.
How do you like your blue-eyed [accuser] now? The Post's Paul Farhi asked Ryan Grim. You can read all about it here.