Media

“They Played It Up Pretty Big”: Turmoil Engulfs the Times Over the Kavanaugh Debacle

Sources say Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly initially pitched their reporting to the news side, but top editors ultimately felt that there wasn’t enough juice to warrant a story there—punting the scoop to the Sunday Review section. “In today’s journalistic world, the conversation is a bit irrelevant,” one source said. “Your average reader is not gonna really know or care where it is.”
Brett Kavanaugh
By Tom Williams/Getty Images.

As much as the new flurry of reports concerning Brett Kavanaugh’s college behavior has reignited a debate over his suitability to serve on the Supreme Court, they’ve also supercharged the ever volatile climate of New York Times outrage. The paper is once again engulfed in a familiar maelstrom, taking heavy incoming from both sides on Twitter and cable news. It began over the weekend, with an adaptation from Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly’s new book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh. Their excerpt surfaced a previously unreported allegation, from former Yale classmate Max Stier, that Kavanaugh’s friends once “pushed his penis into the hand of a female student” during a drunken dorm party. It also reported that “Mr. Stier, who runs a nonprofit organization in Washington, notified senators and the FBI about this account, but the FBI did not investigate.”

The story, which has been corroborated by the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the New Yorker, landed with significant impact, prompting calls for Kavanaugh’s impeachment, and provoking the inevitable presidential tweetstorm: “DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT THESE HORRIBLE PEOPLE WILL DO OR SAY. They are looking to destroy, and influence his opinions - but played the game badly. They should be sued!”

At the same time, a pair of unforced errors magnified the story’s vulnerability. For one thing, there was a now infamous, now deleted tweet from @nytopinion that the Times had to apologize for. (“Having a penis thrust in your face at a drunken dorm party may seem like harmless fun…”) There was also a subsequently appended editors’ note: “The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.” It was an oversight, to be sure, but one that gave right-wing critics something to scream about.

Of course, conservatives weren’t the only ones screaming. In liberal corners, the Times came under fire for running the Kavanaugh revelations in the paper’s Sunday Review section. The Review is under the purview of the Opinion department, as opposed to the News pages, where, according to the logic, the story would have carried more weight. Moreover, some critics took issue with the notion of Times reporters withholding newsworthy information to coincide with the publication of their book. That is, indeed, a tricky thing for the Times to navigate, especially as more reporters than ever before are landing book deals, and the paper is trying to get a better handle on it all.

Nonetheless, if a Times journalist goes on unpaid book leave, the company doesn’t have ownership of the reporting that he or she conducts while on leave. In a Twitter thread responding to the furor over the Kavanaugh story, the Times’ communications department acknowledged, “The new revelations contained in the piece were uncovered during the reporting process for the book, which is why this information did not appear in The Times before the excerpt.” The department also noted that the Sunday Review “includes both news analysis and opinion pieces. The section frequently runs excerpts of books produced by Times reporters.”

It’s not as if books by Times reporters don’t get covered in the News pages, as was the case with, say, revelations about Harvey Weinstein from Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey’s new book just last week. These things are handled on a case-by-case basis, and there’s no hard and fast rule. But in this instance, given the backlash, the rhyme or reason seems interesting.

Why did the Kavanaugh excerpt end up in the Review? People familiar with how things went down told me that Kelly and Pogrebin initially pitched their scoop to the news side, but the top editors ultimately felt that there wasn’t enough juice to warrant a story there, let alone a big page-one treatment (the type many lefties would have been salivating for). Instead, Pogrebin and Kelly were told that they could pitch the Review, which is entirely independent of the News department. I asked for clarification as to what about the story wasn’t News-pages-worthy, but the Times declined to comment, as did Kelly and Pogrebin. (A Times spokesperson did, however, point out that “it’s not unusual for Opinion or Sunday Review pieces to break news.”)

I got mixed reactions from insiders as to whether the Times made the right call. Some agree that the new material, as presented in the book, wasn’t earth-shattering, especially since the anonymous woman at the center of the alleged penis-thrusting incident claims to not remember it. (In a related story, the Washington Post revealed on Monday that it “did not publish a story” about the incident last year “in part because the intermediaries declined to identify the alleged witness and because the woman who was said to be involved declined to comment.”) Others feel that if a piece of reporting meets the standards of the Review, then it should meet the standards of the News department, and vice versa. Still others find it surprising that newsroom brass didn’t want what Pogrebin and Kelly were offering. Summing up the internal vibe on this overall, one source said, “The most charitable read is that the Times sometimes twists itself in knots with weird internal rules and traditions.”

And then there’s this perspective, as another Times source put it: “The irony is that this book is not an attack on Kavanaugh. It’s very balanced. If people actually read the book, they’ll see it’s very fair and meticulous and well reported. Liberals are not going to be satisfied. This is not an ‘Impeach Kavanaugh’ book.”

Similarly, in the words of a former high-ranking Times figure, “In today’s journalistic world, the conversation is a bit irrelevant, because for most of the people who read the New York Times online or on their phones, it doesn’t matter. It’s all the same. Your average reader is not gonna really know or care where it is. They played it up pretty big, and I have to tell you: When I first read it, I had no idea it was in the Review. I tapped on a link, and at the top it said ‘News Analysis.’ And I also didn’t know it was a book adaptation, because I didn’t even get to the end. I get the point of view of the activists. They want the Times to further their agenda, but that’s not the Times’ job.”

More Great Stories from Vanity Fair

— The epic meltdown that ended Travis Kalanick
— Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s curious sociopathy
— SolarCity: how Elon Musk gambled Tesla to save another project
— “It’s a f--king scam”: beware the Hollywood Con Queen
— The nine-figure bill for Trump’s “very inexpensive” golf habit

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.