A random distribution of errors would be disappointing. A skewed distribution or errors is outrageous.

From Confirmation bias: Brett Kavanaugh and the major media's worst moment by Becket Adams. A useful summary of the sequence of the mainstream media missteps in reporting the Kavanaugh debacle.

As Margot Cleveland pointed out about the accuser's testimony:

But the problem for Ford is not that she doesn’t remember everything: It is that everything she remembers changes at her convenience.

One might say about the performance of the mainstream media:

It wasn't that the mainstream media made reporting errors: it is that their errors were consistently skewed in one direction.

Or, as Adams puts it:

Taken separately, a fair-minded person could say the authors of these and still more unfairly anti-Kavanaugh reports were merely ignorant or sloppy. But taken all together – and mind you, this doesn't even include the commentaries – it paints a far more damaging picture for some of the nation’s most prestigious and vaunted newsrooms.

From the smaller errors to the more egregious ones (like NBC's decision to air the Swetnick interview), there’s only one thing that ties all the awful reporting together. Every single story worked against Kavanaugh, as if with a unity of purpose intended to ensure that he would never be given a fair chance to clear his good name and reach the Supreme Court.