As Twitchy reported, Fox News’ Martha MacCallum conducted an interview with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his wife, where Kavanaugh defended himself against allegations of sexual assault and even shared some news about when he lost his virginity.
Wow: Tonight, Fox News's Martha MacCallum will have an exclusive interview with Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his wife Ashley Estes Kavanaugh
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) September 24, 2018
Before the interview even aired, Washington Post media columnist Margaret Sullivan noted that Kavanaugh’s appearance checked all of the boxes in Kavanaugh’s favor, including a female interviewer:
Female interviewer, check. Fox News, check. Bill Shine approved, check. When an "exclusive interview" promises to be a challenge-free infomercial. https://t.co/fFCtNgZplO
— Margaret Sullivan (@Sulliview) September 24, 2018
Wife at your side, check.
— Margaret Sullivan (@Sulliview) September 24, 2018
Is she suggesting that a female interviewer can only contribute to what promised to be “a challenge-free infomercial”?
Funny how when a woman who has built an incredible career as a fair journalist is set to interview Kavanaugh, this is how the left reacts. They don’t care about fairness, they care about destruction. https://t.co/1th34em0Gk
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) September 24, 2018
Wow. Someone hates women. https://t.co/MCZTG1uXoz
— Tony Katz (@tonykatz) September 24, 2018
So much for girl power. @marthamaccallum isn’t a softball interviewer and if this was Hannity or Tucker the objection would be “a man interviewing a man.” https://t.co/70RqPiTUQd
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 24, 2018
.@marthamaccallum is a great reporter & anything but an easy interview. Don't insult her in trying to make whatever your point is (or 'female interviewers' more broadly, for that matter) https://t.co/hhNR6ldHsI
— Alyssa Farah (@Alyssafarah) September 24, 2018
Margaret has clearly never watched @marthamaccallum interview anyone. What a garbage take. https://t.co/hgXp3Kp8Yo
— John Cooper (@thejcoop) September 24, 2018
Raggy, biter liberal attacking another woman because she's not a down-the-line liberal who won't let the facts stand in the way of a good story like her, check! https://t.co/dGwhLENwBg
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) September 24, 2018
Holy cow, @Sulliview! "Female interviewer" = "challenge-free" – that's a remarkably sexist thing to say. Are you serious, or trolling to see if you can irritate someone? https://t.co/FU8nWKEexW
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) September 24, 2018
Not "accomplished journalist". "Female interviewer." https://t.co/oA7h8lvpfB
— Beard and Circus (@Shooter_ptpx01) September 24, 2018
I'm confused… is "Female" now a disqualifying feature? https://t.co/PhcEWBKpQ0
— W T (@thirdgenwidget) September 24, 2018
Imagine that this is the complaint about a journalist today of all days. https://t.co/ki49de0p3O
— Chance Gardener (@ChanceBGardener) September 24, 2018
The female interviewer has a name. And aren't women free to be employed by whoever they want to be employed by?
Your tweet looks pretty darn misogynistic, ngl. https://t.co/Qju8rIHVPt
— AOR&ERL Badg3rman? [TK] (@TheBadg3rman) September 24, 2018
Criticizing something before you've seen it, check.
How's that saying about book covers and judging go? https://t.co/Y7naCDGB6r
— Jason Russell (@JRussellMI) September 24, 2018
Why buy the Washington Post when they decide what the news is before the news happens? https://t.co/m6dAdAK0Wu
— Nathan the Wurtzelhearted (@NathanWurtzel) September 24, 2018
Hack liberal "journalist" tweets about it.
Check. https://t.co/J9LhReY6Du
— RBe (@RBPundit) September 24, 2018
This hasn't even aired and the partisans are already calling it a failure. https://t.co/Q3zdNHuynp
— John Sexton (@verumserum) September 24, 2018
This is a Washington Post ‘media columnist’ sneering at an interview she hasn’t seen, and apparently ignorant of @marthamaccallum’s previous interviews, awards, and curriculum vitae as a journalist. But hey, that qualifies Sullivew to be on @ReliableSources so there’s that. https://t.co/0VRsSsBUlJ
— johnny dollar (@johnnydollar01) September 24, 2018
Liberal interviewer, check. New Yorker, check. Democrat approved, check. Memory confirmed after talking with Democrat donating lawyer, check. When an 'exclusive interview" promises to be do the bidding of the Senate Democrats… https://t.co/xNyKXaPmeF
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) September 24, 2018
I don't see Christine Blasey Ford scheduling any interviews on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or CNN. All of them would be challenge free. But apparently the diva of ditz is waiting for her Norma Desmond moment before Senate Judiciary Committee. https://t.co/2EUDeyclqq
— Ecklebob Chiselfritz (@RotNScoundrel) September 24, 2018
Prejudicial review of something u haven't seen.
CHECK!
TYPICAL Left leaning bias.
CHECK! https://t.co/kfx4O0k50A
— Texas Mike (@mch2601) September 24, 2018
Jealous of a good interview, check. https://t.co/BNanDtIGM7
— Heather Champion (@winningatmylife) September 24, 2018
Unhappy liberal, check. https://t.co/w8UpErvzVz
— Nolo???? (@Nolo4dolo) September 24, 2018
Looking forward to Stelter asking what Rather thinks about all this. https://t.co/o3j4fmJzeS
— Blame Big Government (@BlameBigGovt) September 24, 2018
Yes, let’s get some men to analyze what we’ve just seen.
If only everyone in the media could be as unbiased and impartial as Margaret Sullivan. https://t.co/ivoEfzJL8z
— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) September 24, 2018
Sure. And your ilk would have been absolutely fair, right? Fraud. Liberal fraud. https://t.co/eO2BlJSECY
— Rob Wade #Authentic (@RobertCFP) September 24, 2018
So like 99% of the time any Democrat is interviewed by any of the other cable networks then? https://t.co/lMkrb7qw70
— Colby Badhwar (@ColbyBadhwar) September 24, 2018
I suppose she should ask hard-hitting questions like…
"…what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most, and troubled you the most?" https://t.co/Uwt1MbxpMl
— Wyldways (@wyldways) September 24, 2018
"promises to be a challenge-free infomercial" – which is precisely what the Washington Post original article was, could have been drafted by her public relations team https://t.co/TFxFvLHhqg
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) September 24, 2018
The lack of self-awareness about Post's co-conspiratorial role in creating the Ford story is … just what we expect. https://t.co/3BuFVnwiCx
— Diana West (@diana_west_) September 24, 2018
Related:
HACKIEST hacks of 'em all! CNN's headline about Kavanaugh's letter to Grassley proves they are the very WORST https://t.co/zWRtsh8nsd
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) September 24, 2018
Join the conversation as a VIP Member