![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/09\/APP-091919-Freeman.jpg\")
<\/p>\nRUSH: You know, I was watching Fox this morning, and they were talking about something. Have you heard the bit in the Kavanaugh book by these two babes at the New York Times? Have you heard that they say in the book that they called Kavanaugh and they offered to interview him? They wanted to interview him for the book. They say that Kavanaugh said that he would do it if they would not report that he had done it. In other words, he would talk to \u2019em on background. He would tell \u2019em what they want to know, only if they said they didn\u2019t talk to him. Of course, they refused.<\/p>\n
So I\u2019m watching people discussing this today on Fox News. One of the people talking about it is a good reporter, a great reporter from the Wall Street Journal named James Freeman. He\u2019s a Fox analyst. James Freeman is a journalist, he\u2019s in the business, and he was talking about how brilliant a guy Kavanaugh is here for refusing to talk to these New York Times reporters. (paraphrased) “Kavanaugh was very smart because he knew he would be misquoted, that he would be lied about.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
James Freeman is talking about the way the New York Times does business as though it\u2019s common knowledge that — day in and day out — they lie, that they make things up, that they misquote people, that they\u2019re running agendas. This is somebody in the business. This is not somebody outside the business making a comment about journalism. This is a guy who is in the upper echelon of reporters at the Wall Street Journal. I ask myself this question frequently. You know, I read a lot of stuff, folks, and I read a lot of people (leftists) who love the media and who think the New York Times is God on earth — and I am not exaggerating that.<\/p>\n
They think the New York Times is infallible. They all want to work there. They all want to know the reporters that work there. I mean, it\u2019s the most amazing thing. Yet here comes the Times, and they pull a stunt like this where they leave out exculpatory comments from the woman supposedly abused by Kavanaugh who doesn\u2019t remember it happening. Then we find out that Christine Blasey Ford\u2019s best friend did not even believe her story. Then we were told that Christine Blasey Ford had a real, real challenge to get to Washington because she doesn\u2019t like to fly. She\u2019s very nervous flying.<\/p>\n
Well, we find out that the cofounder of LinkedIn put her on his private jet to get her to Washington! Reid… Reid whatever his name is. What\u2019s the cofounder of LinkedIn\u2019s name? Reid Huffingsmith? Reid Elkington? Reid whatever the name is. I know the name. It\u2019s at the tip of my tongue. I\u2019m having a little brain spasm here. Anyway, so all of these leftists are engineering the Christine Blasey Ford charade, while people say (sobbing), “She doesn\u2019t like to fly. It was a really courageous thing she did to get there to try to save the court! (sniffle) My God, she\u2019s so afraid of flying!<\/p>\n
“She thinks the plane\u2019s gonna go down!” And then (wailing), “She\u2019s so still traumatized over Kavanaugh.” It\u2019s like that, and now we find out that it was all part of a scam, that it was all part of a plan, that she was flown in a private jet. All of this stuff was… (interruption) Yeah, that\u2019s right. Reid Hoffman. So all this stuff was given as prepub to give her credibility, when all of it is lies! So, anyway, this guy James Freeman from the Wall Street Journal is talking about this as though its commonly known, everyday behavior, strategy, business acumen at the New York Times or whatever.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/APP-081919-New-York-Times-LIES.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
And I\u2019m stunned! And then I go by these little leftists who love New York Times and fantasize about working there and think it\u2019s the bible, and then they pull a stunt like this. You ought to see the way these disciples New York Times for doing this. It is… The stretches they go to to exonerate them. “Well, I\u2019m sure the editor made a mistake. I\u2019m sure the editor feels very badly about this!” The editor doesn\u2019t feel bad about anything other than they didn\u2019t get away with it.<\/p>\n
They were running an ongoing scam to get rid of Kavanaugh and it blew up in their face, and their business practices have been exposed to everybody. And now to listen to a New York\/Washington journalist, James Freeman — and they\u2019re all talking about the Times this way — as though it\u2019s, “Well, everybody knows they make stuff up in this story. Everybody knows that they are misquoting people.” There\u2019s nobody trying even to protect the image of journalism, is my point. They just acknowledge it. I\u2019m a little floored by it.<\/p>\n
Because, if this is the case, if the New York Times knowingly misquotes… If you should never talk to the New York Times \u2019cause they\u2019re gonna make it up about you, because they\u2019re gonna misquote you, because they\u2019re gonna lie to you — if you\u2019re smart enough to never talk to the New York Times — then somebody explain to me why any of us should read it. If even journalists are willing to acknowledge that everyday practices include lying to people that they\u2019re talking to, misquoting people they\u2019re talking to, lying about events that they are reporting, then why in…? If everybody knows it, why should we even bother to read it?<\/p>\n
BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n
RUSH: So I got an email. “Dear Mr. Limbaugh: What happened to protecting your sources in journalism?” This is bouncing off the story earlier today that it has been learned that these two women that wrote this bogus book on Kavanaugh… There\u2019s no evidence backing this up. In fact, what we have learned is that nobody remembers any of these allegations that were made against Kavanaugh — and the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford, her best friend didn\u2019t even believe.<\/p>\n
So these two babes are writing the book for the New York Times, and they call Kavanaugh, and they tell him that they want to interview him for the book. And they say that he told them that he would if they would not report that — that he would talk to them, that he would answer their questions, but that they couldn\u2019t report that they had interviewed him. I heard James Freeman for the Wall Street Journal on TV talking about how smart Kavanaugh was, because everybody knows the New York Times makes things up, and they misquote you, and they lie.<\/p>\n
Well, if journalists know this, then why the hell do they tell us that what\u2019s in the New York Times is so damn important? If you can\u2019t believe it, if they use trickery and chicanery, if they lie to people and misquote them… We know they do from the 2-1\/2 year, failed attempt to get rid of Trump! I don\u2019t know how that newspaper or anybody else in the Drive-By Media honestly has any credibility. They openly, blatantly lied to people many times a day assuring their readers Trump was toast.<\/p>\n
He was gone. He had colluded with Russia. He cheated. He didn\u2019t deserve to win. Hillary should have won! He and the Russians stole the election. They made so many Americans believe this. Remember the polling data: 42% of the American people at one time thought the Russians had tampered with vote machines? So I don\u2019t know. I honestly don\u2019t know how they have any credibility anyway. If I had done that to you all, if I had misled you about something that matters to you, if I had blatantly lied to you every day for 2-1\/2 years and then I end up being exposed, you\u2019re gone — and I wouldn\u2019t blame you.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s nothing I could do. There\u2019s no excuse I could come up with that would save me. You would be gone and rightfully so. But not their audience. Their audience says, “Oh, okay. I guess this effort to get Trump failed. Well, we expect you to do another one,” and they did! Now they\u2019re off on some other effort to get Trump. Now it\u2019s Kavanaugh again. Proving that they don\u2019t have anything of substance to run for the presidency on.<\/p>\n
But the question about sourcing. You know, isn\u2019t it sacrosanct? Isn\u2019t it one of the founding, building block principles of journalism that you never reveal your sources? Right? You never, ever do this. So why are these two babes reporting that they spoke to Kavanaugh and that Kavanaugh agreed to talk to them only if they wouldn\u2019t mention that they had talked to him? They burned a source! They\u2019re violating every journalism rule known to exist — at least every rule they tell us they follow.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/11\/APP-110618-Combat.jpg\")
I think what\u2019s becoming abundantly clear is there aren\u2019t any rules in journalism anymore other than, “Get Republicans.” That\u2019s it. That is the guiding principle in American journalism today: “Get Republicans while building up and advancing the leftist Democrat agenda.” That\u2019s what journalism is — and, as such, it isn\u2019t journalism. It\u2019s political activism. So this is how journalists do it now. They go out there and say, “Talk to us for our book or we\u2019ll tell everybody you offered to anonymously on background.”<\/p>\n
So they go talk to somebody who says, “I\u2019ll talk to you but only on background,” and the New York Times exposes them, burning a source. Whatever happened to protecting their sources? You know, sources ask for anonymity or not to be quoted on the record all the time. It\u2019s the coin of the realm in journalism! Except there isn\u2019t a realm anymore, much less a coin. I know I\u2019ve beaten this to death, but I really don\u2019t understand how they have any credibility.<\/p>\n
If I were a dyed-in-the-wool leftist and I\u2019d been hanging and hoping on every promise they were making to me that Trump was toast — and then every effort that they assured me was done, had blown up and Trump was still there — I would be so mad at these people. I\u2019d be canceling subscriptions. I wouldn\u2019t let them toy with my emotions like this anymore. But apparently the people on the left know that they\u2019re not dealing in journalism here. They know that their paper is an activist extension of the Democrat Party.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
RUSH: If you should never talk to the New York Times 'cause they're gonna make it up about you, because they're gonna misquote you, why should we even bother to read it?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":319656,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[12,1],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n