How many times did Ford change her story on Kavanaugh?

It changed quite a few times. Maybe three or four major revisions.

I don't have a definite number. It might depend on various factors like who was involved and what the story was about.

It made the public more divided. Some who were already skeptical of Kavanaugh saw it as confirmation of their doubts. Others, who supported him, saw it as a baseless smear and became more firmly in his corner.

The Washington Times likely reported Kavanaugh admitting to faking a story by presenting the facts in a straightforward manner. They may have interviewed relevant sources, if available, to get more information. They might have also provided context, like when the story was faked and what the potential motives could be. It's also possible they included reactions from different parties, such as those who were affected by the story or those who have an interest in Kavanaugh's actions.

The 'ny times kavanaugh story' greatly influenced public perception. It made the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh a major talking point. People who were following the story closely had to grapple with the credibility of the accusers and Kavanaugh's denials. It led to a more widespread discussion about the vetting process for Supreme Court nominees. Many in the public started to question whether enough was being done to ensure that nominees were of good character. It also caused a rift in public opinion, with some losing faith in the political system's ability to handle such sensitive nominations fairly, while others became more entrenched in their pre - existing beliefs depending on which side of the political spectrum they were on.

The story likely swayed public opinion in different ways. For those who were already skeptical of Kavanaugh, it may have strengthened their doubts. It brought more attention to the accusations, making some in the public more critical of his nomination.

When it comes to reporting on the Kavanaugh story, Fox and The New York Times had distinct approaches. Fox tended to support Kavanaugh more vigorously. They may have framed the story as a political attack on a conservative nominee, highlighting the lack of evidence in a way that favored Kavanaugh. For example, they might have given more airtime to Kavanaugh's defenders. The New York Times, on the other hand, was more likely to explore the broader context. They may have investigated the cultural and political environment that allowed such a controversial nomination to proceed. They also may have interviewed more people related to the allegations, including the accusers and those who could provide relevant background information, which made their coverage more comprehensive in terms of exploring all sides of the issue.

When Politifact was dealing with the New York Times story on Kavanaugh, they likely had a set process. First, they identified the key claims in the story. Then, they began their research. For instance, if the story was about Kavanaugh's educational background and certain events during that time, Politifact would reach out to the educational institutions, check archives, and interview people who might have known Kavanaugh at that time. They would also look at how the New York Times presented the information, whether it was balanced or seemed to have a bias. Based on all these aspects, they would form their judgment.

The New York Times' response to the 'fake' claim of the Kavanaugh story was likely complex. They may have stood by their journalistic process initially. However, as more scrutiny came, they might have had to re - evaluate their reporting. They could have been more transparent about how they sourced the information and why they thought it was newsworthy in the face of so much doubt.