A bad 24 hours for journalism standards, by Silvio Canto.

A new woman emerged against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, but even some journalists can’t believe what they are watching. The new woman’s story is based on a corroborating witness who wasn’t at the party. What? Apparently, he heard something about the party after it happened. Again, what? …

No evidence, no corroboration, no testimony under oath.

Caleb Hull put it this way: “Timeline:

• She didn’t know who it was for 35 years
• Kavanaugh was nominated
• She met with Dem lawyer for 6 days to “assess her memories”
• Accused Kavanaugh
• She still isn’t even sure it was him
• All the witnesses deny it
• Kavanaugh denies it
• Other outlets passed on story”

… How can a business continue to be this sloppy?  Don’t these news organization have editors or people on staff who double-check this stuff?

The job of a modern journalist is to consider each news event or fact and ask: how does this help the left?