Irresponsible journalism or fair game?
“I’m disappointed in The New York Times piece. It’s not true,” he (John McCain) said at a Toledo, Ohio, news conference, with his wife, Cindy, by his side. Watch McCain respond to the paper’s allegations » (Source: CNN)
February 22, 2008
How The Times Helped McCain
The New York Times may have done the impossible for the John McCain campaign and for Republicans in general. As predicted yesterday when their strange and threadbare allegations hit print, the attack united conservatives behind McCain. It also may have been an act of seppuku for the Times, as its claim objectivity and credibility have been discredited. The Los Angeles Times surveys the damage:
Conservative commentators, including some who previously chastised McCain for not hewing closely to their principles, leaped to the candidate’s defense.
Radio personality Laura Ingraham, like other critics, noted that the newspaper had been researching the story for several months and accused the Times of delaying publication to do maximum damage.
“You wait until it’s pretty much beyond a doubt that he’s going to be the Republican nominee,” Ingraham said on her morning radio program, “and then you let it drop — drop some acid in the pool, contaminate the whole pool. That’s what the New York Times thinks.”
The most popular host in talk radio, Rush Limbaugh, described the story as standard fare for the paper he accuses of coddling the left.
“You’re surprised that Page Six-type gossip is on the front page of the New York Times?” said Limbaugh in reference to the gossip column of the tabloid New York Post. Limbaugh, who previously has ripped McCain as a fake conservative, said: “Where have you been? How in the world can anybody be surprised?”
Bear in mind that both radio hosts had pressed hard before Super Tuesday to keep McCain from winning the nomination. They have no particular love for the Arizona Senator, and had kept up a steady drumbeat of criticism over his record. If the New York Times had actually produced a substantiated scandal involving McCain, they may have been the first to proclaim I told you so! from the tops of their transmitting stations.
Instead, the Times ran a piece of gossipy nonsense that doesn’t even have the courage to allege what it only implies. Two self-described “disillusioned” former staffers who won’t go on the record alleged — what? — that McCain had an affair? No. That McCain did favors for a romantic paramour? No. The Times reported that these two staffers somehow got past Mark Salter and John Weaver to stage a confrontation with McCain over their concerns that McCain might have possibly started to get close to thinking about a romance with Vicki Iseman.
For this, the Times offers no corroboration. They report on a confrontation between John Weaver and Vicki Iseman, but neglect to report that Weaver explained to them that he had heard Iseman brag about her connections to McCain and the Commerce Committee, not about any alleged affair. That didn’t make it into the Times’ report. Neither did the fact that McCain often voted against the interests of Iseman’s clients, and that votes in favor of them matched McCain’s often stated policy positions held long before Iseman became a lobbyist.
Here is the full story and here is more coverage about this issue.
For the record, I do not like politics and I have never met Senator John McCain. I am neither a registered Republican nor Democrat.
I have great respect for Sen. McCain, but facts can be unpleasant things.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179695.php
I’m disappointed in the NYT in general. It the newspaper which gave nuts like Sloan, Gordon, Roberts and Laffernati unjust credibility.
This was a smear by the NY Times and had nothing to do with his record. Shame on the NY Times.
I’m a Hillary supporter but this was totally inappropriate.
I’m sorry boy’s and girl’s but, I just can’t buy the idea that the NYT intended this “story” to hurt McCain. I think the whole idea was to create sympathy for McCain. I mean, after all, the whole story of McCain the POW “hero”doesn’t hold water. Why not look into THAT?
Despite what conventional wisdom would have us believe, McCain isn’t a straight talker. He’s an anstoundingly arrogant, self-serving liar, that’s getting a free ride from the media. Where are the tough questions?
“The Captain’s Quarter’s Blog” and Fox News are both patently partisan Right Wing opinion outlets, and *every single one* of the sources quoted in the story you were kind enough to pass along is a blatantly partisan Right Wing commentator (not even legitimate journalists). How did you expect them to react? They might personally hate McCain’s guts, but of course they would not miss an opportunity to paint the NYT as Leftist.
Definitely, definitely, definitely this blog should stick to chess – this was *not* a savvy piece of political blogging, and it wasn’t a cogent journalistic critique either.
Here is a link to the NY Times’ own Q&A on their article.
A commentator on NPR’s “On Point” show this morning thought it strange that the paper would wrap the “revelation” inside a philosophical article about how difficult it is to maintain consistency of ethics when you work with other people and things happen. That aspect of the article is relevant to chess, and to teenagers learning about the complexities of the world.
And this story has what to do with chess? Oh yeah… politics.
This was obviously a cheap shot at McCain. The NY Times is known to be a left wing paper so what do you expect.
The NYT had no facts. They shouldn’t publish something without proof. This is just nasty politics from a liberal newspaper.
Did the NY Times state their source? Did they get the information from Sam Sloan or Ray Gordon?
“The NYT had no facts. They shouldn’t publish something without proof.” Okay, now journalism is just reporting on verdicts of the Supreme Court. Thanks for the clarification.
There’s a difference between tabloid journalism and investigative journalism. No un-named sources sometimes means no story either. These are nuanced points, and do not justify pronouncements – albeit that debate is alright.
Nothing you
The New York Times has always been a liberal rag that Putin would be proud of.
They would never publish Kasparov like the Wall Street Journal does
This story was first leaked back in December by Drudge of “80% right” fame–not exactly a liberal source.
The TPM link provided in my 2:09 post links in turn to Michael Isikoff’s story on the Newsweek site, which notes certain inconsistencies between Sen. McCain’s recent statements on this matter and his sworn testimony of 2002.
Mr. Isikoff played a key role in the reporting of the Lewinsky affair, a story that (if memory serves) was not welcomed by most liberals.
While public servants are entitled to private lives, we expect those with fiduciary responsibility to avoid both actual improprieties and the appearance of the same.
One might also note that Sen. Clinton’s commodities trading was questionable
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm
or that my homeboy has admitted lapses of his own
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
Finally, humans are imperfect; I too have skeletons in my closet. I’d be happy to have any of these three Senators as our next President.
The press helps keep our leaders on the straight and narrow. Good for them.
I would enjoy hearing Paul Truong’s comments on this matter.
Rush Limbaugh attacks a newspaper for using sleazy political innuendo and cheap disregard for the facts?
bill brock you should read what you link to.
the inconsistencies in the story that you site have nothing to do with whether or not McCain had an affair or a conflict of interest which is what the nyt story is about.
When Bill Clinton does the hanky-panky people blamed the woman, when McCain gets caught, he is to blame.
Tsk! Such a double standard!
See today’s Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR
Again, I do not wish to call the totality of Sen. McCain’s character into question (I disagree with many of his positions, but think he would make a fine President), but to defend the legitimacy of the NY Times article.
From great things to small: as a defendant in the Sloan v. Truong et al. suit, I thought, and still think, that Dylan Loeb McClain’s coverage has been rather misleading, as it omitted the portions of the suit that demonstrate Plaintiff’s tenuous hold on reality.
I called Mr. McClain to tell him so. However, I don’t bear him or the Times any personal animus, as I am unaware of any factual errors in the articles themselves.
I again urge all contributors to sign their posts.
McCain attorney Robert S. Bennett
“We understood that he [McCain] did not speak directly with him [Paxson]. Now it appears he did speak to him. What is the difference?”
Hint, Robert, there IS a difference …