It’s one thing to misspell a name or get a specific date wrong. It’s another thing entirely to report that a supposed witness to a sexual assault says he remembers it happening when he has said the exact opposite.

For an example of the latter, we turn to the New York Times, which published a report Tuesday titled, “ Christine Blasey Ford Wants F.B.I. to Investigate Kavanaugh Before She Testifies.”

Ford alleges Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the 1980s when they were both in high school.

“The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others," she said in her letter addressed to Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif. "Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stairwell from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.”

It added, “Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh's hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.”

Ford can’t recall the time or the location of the alleged assault. She can't remember how she got there or how she got home that night. She remembers (or believes) only that her alleged attacker was a young Brett Kavanaugh, and that he was egged on by his friend, Mark Judge. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations repeatedly. Judge has also said repeatedly he has no memory whatsoever of what Ford alleges.

This is where the Times report goes off the rail. The paper's Tuesday report included a passage that originally read [emphasis added]:



One possible witness is a friend of Judge Kavanaugh’s, Mark Judge, who Dr. Blasey said was in the room with Judge Kavanaugh when the assault occurred. Mr. Judge had told the Judiciary Committee that he does remember the episode and has nothing more to say, seemingly foreclosing the possibility of an additional witness interview, at least for now.



No, no, no. That’s the exact opposite of what Judge told the Judiciary Committee. Good Lord.

The Times' mistake remained on its website for more than 40 minutes before anyone caught it. The paper has since amended the story to correct its obviously huge error. The report bears an editor’s note now that reads, “An earlier version of this article misstated what Mark Judge told the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said that he does not remember the episode, not that he does.”

“Does” versus” “does not” makes all the difference.

The Times’ Nick Confessore announced Tuesday that they are “looking for false information being spread deliberately to confuse, mislead, or influence voters ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.” The false information coming from inside the house is surely a great deal more influential and therefore damaging than anything they'll find outside.