It amazes just how brazen members of the media are in their unapologetic hypocrisy. In this social media age everything you say, do, report, write and believe is documented and stored for later reference.
Last weekend, Site Nestor covered the media’s eerie silence on the Larry King tape which appeared to corroborate Tara Reade’s sexual assault allegations against Joe Biden. (She’s more recently claimed rape, but then that sort of story shifting has never stopped the MeToo promulgators from believing all women). Reade had told The Intercept in an interview that her mother called into CNN in 1993, asking for advice about her daughter’s issue with a “prominent senator”.
Michelle Goldberg’s MeToo Background
Michelle Goldberg, columnist for the New York Times, has had a storied record of immediately believing women when they accuse men of sexual assault. Back in 2018, she was firmly in Christine Blasey Ford’s corner when Ford had accused Brett Kavanaugh, the then Supreme Court Justice nominee, of sexual assault.
In her piece ‘Boys Will Be Supreme Court Justices’, Goldberg immediately makes it clear. “Obviously, I believe Christine Blasey Ford; the psychology professor who says that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in high school while his friend Mark Judge watched and, at moments, egged him on. I believe her when she says that Kavanaugh, who she says was drunk, held her down, covered her mouth when she tried to scream, and ground against her while attempting to pull her clothes off. I believe her when she says this incident haunted her all her life.”
Keep in mind, Goldberg wrote all this without a shred of evidence that any of it was true.
Goldberg’s Problems With Reade’s Story
On the NYT Podcast called “The Argument”, Goldberg, who contributed to the April 16 show, appears to have changed her prerequisites for “believing all women”.
“He said she said is one thing.” Goldberg began “And he said she said she said she said she said is another. I mean, in some ways my take is a muddle, right, because I come away from the whole thing with just a lot of doubt and confusion.”
Goldberg added: “You know, this is one of those stories that if the story itself had come to any of these mainstream news outlets, you know The New York Times, the Associated Press, or the Washington Post that eventually reported on it, they probably wouldn’t have done the story.”
She found Reade’s story so incredible that she said it was “smuggled into the mainstream discourse both by allegations on left wing podcasts and by questions about why Times Up wasn’t taking Tara Reade’s case. And slowly there was this drumbeat of why is The New York Times not reporting on this? Why is the Washington Post not reporting on this. And so finally, they did report on it and relatively quickly.”
Too quickly for Goldberg’s taste apparently. “Their stories came out about two and 1/2 weeks after the initial allegation. I think they’re all written in a way that forces you to make up your own mind, that says there is some evidence and also some contradictions.”
Why Goldberg Believed Ford
Back in 2018, Goldberg wrote, “In the end, it didn’t really matter how many women begged them not to do this, how many times women said slow down, stop, please, no. As of this writing, it seems inevitable that Republicans in the Senate are going to shove Brett Kavanaugh down our throats.”
Her justification for believing Ford? “According to polls, a majority of American women believe that Christine Blasey Ford told the truth when she said Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her.”
“But the United States Senate is run by Republican men,” Goldberg bleated on, “and thanks to them, Kavanaugh will most likely soon be on the Supreme Court, deciding, among other things, how much control women will be permitted over our own bodies.”
In Tara Reade’s case however, Goldberg isn’t citing such statistics. Nor does she seem overly concerned about the control the accused Biden would have “over women’s bodies”, were he to gain the presidency.
If contradictions in women’s allegations didn’t stop Goldberg from believing them before, why does she have such a hard time believing Reade now?
Differences Between Reade and Ford
Goldberg concedes that the only reason she wrote a piece on Reade’s allegation is because: “I felt like I had to respond because there’s been so much trolling of liberal feminists by both the left and the right that says, oh, you know, you believe women except when they’re making accusations against Democrats, or, you believe Christine Blasey Ford but you don’t believe Tara Reade when there are real, real differences in these two stories.”
Yes there are ‘real differences’. For one, Reade’s allegations seem far more credible than Forde’s. (see that Larry King tape).
Even one of her cohosts, Frank Bruni asked Goldberg to explain the differences between “this allegation and the one that Christine Blasey Ford made against Brett Kavanaugh.”
“Can you point out some of the key differences as you see it?” Bruni asked.
Goldberg’s reply: “If Christine Blasey Ford nine months, or however many months before she made these allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, had told a completely different story to journalists and then said, you know, well, I was too ashamed to tell the full truth then, here’s the real story, I think feminists might have believed her. But they certainly wouldn’t have wanted her to testify in a Congressional hearing. Right.”
But Ford’s Congressional hearing turned out to be a disaster for her, precisely because there were contradictions in her story. The fact Goldberg, even in 2020, does not acknowledge this suggests how much her political bias blinds her.
That’s probably why Goldberg has no problem seeing “the red flags” in Reade’s allegations, and saw none in Forde’s. It’s also why the columnist conclude’s Reade’s story is not “really viable to say we need to throw Joe Biden over for somebody else even though a part of me would not mind if we had to throw Joe Biden over for somebody else.”
What the above exposes is the fact that Goldberg’s assessments have nothing to do with being morally consistent. They have nothing to do with believing all women. Nothing at all to do with supporting them. They have everything to do with political convenience.
A cursory glance at Goldberg’s columns over the past couple of years, is enough to illustrate a disturbing obsession with Donald Trump. It frankly gives new meaning to the phrase: Trump Derangement Syndrome. (TDS)
And what does it say that in the middle of a conversation Tara Reade, Goldberg took the time to stress how much people like her, “really, really despise Donald Trump”.
In fact, during the podcast episode Goldberg calls Trump a rapist. Then, in order to justify her Tara Reade stance the Times columnist refers to “this lawsuit that was filed, and dismissed, and then refiled, and then withdrawn by this anonymous 13-year-old girl who says that Donald Trump raped her at Jeffrey Epstein’s house. Right?” A story she’s not written about because it has too many holes. (More on that later).
Besides, is the Jeffery Epstein whose Lolita Express, Bill Clinton traveled on several times, even when he was U.S. President. But I guess Goldberg just kinda forgot about that one.
She continued to reference the Trump rape allegation. “I think people see that, unlike a lot of the other accusations, that one, it’s sketchy.”
So according to Goldberg the anonymous 13-year-old girl’s accusation that Donald Trump raped her, is sketchy. If it’s so “sketchy”, why does she even bring it up?
“It has too many red flags.” Goldberg went on. “And sometimes I get emails saying, why haven’t you said more about this? And sort of that’s why. I wouldn’t put Tara Reade on that level. She has more credibility than that.“
So let’s get this straight. Tara Reade has more credibility than this anonymous 13-year-old girl who’s accused Trump of rape. But which story does Goldberg believe? She calls Trump a rapist right before she references that “sketchy” rape allegation. Yet with Reade’s more credible story: “it’s not really viable to say we need to throw Joe Biden over for somebody else…” Okay.
But that’s the mainstream media for you.
And that’s progressives in general. They feign concern about the women, the poor, minorities, etc, as long as they’re politically “viable” to borrow Goldberg’s term. But once that viability runs its course, those people are kicked to the curb and left to fend for themselves, time and time again.