Sorry For The Access Issues…
If you had a hard time getting to the site today, it’s because I had to update my domain name servers (translation: my address changed). Looks like things are back to normal now.
Of course, Hillary and Obama are debating in my fair city at this moment, but the big story of the day was definitely the McCain piece in the NY Times. The article was widely derided on both the left and right, rightly so, as the thinly-sourced gossipy trash it was. The fact that this kind of b.s. can make it to the front page of the NY Times says all you need to know about the decline of the Gray Lady…
UPDATE 10:20 p.m.: So who won the debate? Marc Ambinder says Obama did – but he absolutely LOVED Hillary’s final answer…
Yeah, this one’s really, really odd. It’s either a complete miscalculation by the Times or there’s something else coming. I’m interested to see which, but for now I’m assuming idiocy.
Well, what kills me is there is absolutely no new reporting! The story is literally eight years old…if another shoe doesn’t drop, this is right up there with Jayson Blair (and trust me, I’m not wearing my partisan hat right now – it was an AWFUL story for a paper of that stature)…
Here’s what I know:
1. The story is thin and not new.
2. They had it before the primaries began.
3. They ran it after McCain achieved near certain nominee status.
4. They ran it nine months before the general election.
5. McCain pushed them, personally, not to run it.
Feels like the decision was something like this: we have this story, we put a lot of effort into it, it doesn’t add up to much, if we don’t print we’ll be accused of spiking it for McCain, so we’ll run it when it won’t make a difference.
I disagree. Within the past few months, the Times has run front page stories on the Clintons’ marriage, Obama’s adolescent drug use, Giuliani’s vindictiveness, and questionable actions Romney took in his twenties. So it’s not as though they had a you-know-what for McCain. It’s their job to scrutinize each candidate as closely as possible. However, while each of these stories received the same prominence in the paper, only the McCain piece was picked up by the national media — maybe because sex is a part.
If the story is untrue, then the Times ought to be castigated. None of us are in a position to know whether or not it is true, so let’s assume that it is. Presumably Bill Keller would not want to talk into a s—storm unless he was confident of the facts.
Everybody is focussing on the sex angle — did they or didn’t they? — but I think that misses the point. The core of the story concerns a Senator who nearly lost his job as part of the Keating Five, became a born again good government guy, and stakes his claim on his purity. It is then revealed that he accepted airplane rides and other goodies from lobbyists and had a relationship with a female lobbyist which so alarmed his staff that they felt obligated to keep them apart. You don’t think this is newsworthy? Which is more important: whether Roger Clemens took steroids or whether someone who may be the next President is possibly basing his pitch to the public on something which may be demonstrably false?
As for the timing: if you take Keller at face value, he says the timing was driven by when all of the facts were collected and verified. But let’s assume you choose not to take him at what he says. When should the story have been published? Right before New Hampshire and Ohio? Right after? Before the nominating convention? After? Regardless of when it prints, people will point to sinister motives on the timing.
The suggestion that the Times did it because they don’t like McCain makes no sense: they endorsed him a few weeks ago and have spoken very favorably about him regarding immigration, torture, and campaign reform. The suggestion that they did it to hurt the GOP also doesn’t add up: if that were the case, why would they do it when the party had months to regroup and possibly name another candidate?
Anybody who runs for President knows that every event of his life is subject to scrutiny, and has no reason to complain when rocks are turned over. On the whole, I think this is a good thing, albeit one with a tendency to go too far. I think there is legitimate news value in this piece, and the Times was simply doing its job in reporting it.
sorry, that would be walks into a storm…
Throwing in sex did three things.
1. It made this a story that others picked up. Remember the Rudy hiding security expenses story. The thing that gave it traction was his alleged motive of visiting his lover.
2. Because the sex angle was so thin, it destroyed the rest of the story. No one cares about what could have been a moderate sized story about Mister Clean not being so clean.
3. It went a long way towards deflating any future NYT
hitscandal pieces. The NYT, by throwing in such a weak sex angle, hurt their credibility. It will be easier for McCain to turn away future stories now.One would think that Keller did #3 on purpose.
Peter: motives are almost never truly known, so your explanation is no less (or more) likely than mine. I will differ with you on the “legitimate news value” assertion though; there really is nothing in this story other than innuendo and hearsay. It belongs in the gossip section of the paper (if they have one). Now, if they follow-up with more digging that substantiates a relationship (sexual, financial, etc.) then you will be right and I will be wrong. But I judge that possibility to be highly unlikely.
The precise nature of the “goodies” is not the point. That he (allegedly) interceded with FCC regulators on behalf of her clients is the point of the story.
Even if everything alleged (and more) is true, McCain’s improprieties hardly rise to the Tom Delay/Duke Cunningham level. But, then, his appeal is largely based on his squeeky-clean image of not being another Tom Delay.
Which is what makes this newsworthy.
of cause its newsworthy and ny times is a newspaper. and mccain backers would be whining no matter when it ran.
if the time or post prints something derogatory about obama or clinton the dems would be whining
In response to Steve, there is nothing I could add to Jacques’s post, except to note that the front page in today’s Times has a very unflattering story about Hillary (“Donors and Supporters Worried About Clinton’s Spending”).
Call them hatchet jobs if you want, but they apply the hatchet equally.
I dunno, Peter – I think this kind of looks like the Times is in the bag for Senator McCain. As Steves points out, they sat on this until it wouldn’t hurt him in the primary, but ran it well enough ahead of the general that it probably won’t hurt him there, either. As a bonus, being attacked by the MSM might help McCain with a right-wing base that otherwise doesn’t much care for him – a number of blogs etc seem to be rallying around him already.
On the substance of the article, I agree with Jacques – with any other politician, helping out a lobbyist’s client would be par for the course. Last night, Senators Obama and Clinton defended their respective earmark hauls; how much of that was more-or-less personal favors? This kind of crap goes on all the time. The only reason it matters is that McCain is running as Mr. Clean.
Except McCain is being accused of having once in twenty years potentially given rise to the appearance of such impropriety.
That’s a remarkably high standard.
Clint,
Yeah, but it’s his high standard.
Really?
Can you point to a speech where Senator McCain has held any other to this standard or claimed that he himself could withstand such scrutiny?
Remember– it’s specifically the standard of never, not once in two decades, so much as making a staffer worry that something might be misinterpreted.
It’s not even alleged that he actually did anything unethical, for crying out loud.
Seriously, that’s his standard?
And the times wonders why their readership keeps declining. I am not a big fan of McCain, but this Times story was stupid.
How could the Times really think they could boost their image in the newspaper industry by putting our a very obvious character assassination piece?
It seems like this has a lot of similarities to the Dan Rather hit job as well.
Hmmm. That’s probably why he’s been lying through his teeth about it, ever since the story broke.
Personally, I was pretty sceptical at the outset. But, if the story has the McCain Campaign this rattled, maybe it has some legs, after all…
Using Glenn Greenwald to bolster the credibility of the New York Times?
Is Mary Mapes unavailable or something?
Just attack the source and not what it’s saying and you’ll be A-OK, Aaron. Wait, I guess that’s what y’all are doing about the Times piece in the first place!
Oh, please, Aaron. I cited Greenwald out of the convenience, Citing all the original sources will probably get this comment trapped in Mark’s spam filter. But if you can’t bear dirtying yourself by clicking through Greenwald’s post …
FCC Chairman’s scathing response to McCain’s intervention on behalf of Paxson.
McCain’s categorical denial the he met with Paxson before interceding with the FCC.
Newsweek uncovers McCain’s 2002 sworn deposition in which he admits to having met with Paxson.
The McCain Campaign issues another denial: when McCain testified that “I” met with Paxson, he meant “the Royal ‘I’” — his staff met with Paxson.
Bill Paxson confirms that he met with McCain, personally.
McCain’s first categorical denial could have been the result of mere forgetfulness. When confronted with his previous sworn deposition, the McCain campaign could have said, “Whoops! Yes, the Senator forgot about that meeting.” Instead, they doubled-down and lied about the meaning of McCain’s deposition.
The only interpretation of that move is that they are in full panic mode. Which is why I think this story may have some legs.
Whoops! 2 corrections:
1) It’s LowellPaxson, not “Bill”.
2) The link is here.
Jacques, it does indeed appear that McCain got caught in a contradiction, or if you prefer, lie, about meeting with Paxson, but I disagree on the consequences. The story got play because of the sex angle, not the ‘cozy with lobbyist’ angle. Take away the sex, and all you’ve got is Obama’s Rezco scandal (and Obama was recently caught in his own little ‘misremembrance’ there). It may be a indication of how pervasive potential corruption is, but it’s not going to catch on with the public. This story doesn’t last until next weekend, in my view, minus some REALLY good uncovered dirt…
As I said, this all seems like pretty minor stuff. Hence I’m surprised by the McCain Campaign’s panicky reaction. Perhaps there’s more to this story than meets the eye.
Or perhaps not.
In the latter case, this story will, as you say, be forgotten in a week. In the former case, …
After all, if the big scoop is McCain says his staff met with the guy and the guy says he met with McCain directly – well, that’s hardly earth-shattering. The more relevant question is did McCain improperly use his office – and I’ve seen no smoking gun there…
This is all so funny. Let’s recap: most seem to acknowledge that in Mark’s words, “the story got play because of the sex angle.” (with an implied recognition that it wasn’t run for the sex angle) Then you all rail against the Times for running a sex story and ignore the writers’ focus of the story. Let’s move on folks, nothing to see here. LOL
No, I understand the focus of the story was that McCain poses as a reformer and yet sometimes contradicts that pose with his actions. That’s what makes the story so laughable – it played up a sex angle to punch up what was an extraordinarily thin story and placed it on page one, despite the fact that the events covered are not news and occurred eight years ago. That’s what makes the Times look so bad…
Scott-
That might be a nice spin for the Times to go with. However, the editors of the New York Times didn’t go that way.
I refer you to the follow up piece they published:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21cnd-mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Lead sentence: “Senator John McCain said Thursday that an article in The New York Times about his close ties to a woman lobbyist was untrue, that he had no romantic relationship with the lobbyist and that he had no confrontations in 1999 with worried staff members who told him to stay away from her.”
The author make no attempt to claim that Senator McCain misunderstood the main point of the original article, but appears to agree that the affair was the point.
For that matter, go back to the original article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html
After the teaser of first paragraph; the second paragraph refers to the affair which was anonymously alleged to have been suspected of occurring; the third paragraph refers to the letters to the FCC — with no implication that they were improper, but only that anonymous aides may have been worried that these letters might lead others to stumble on the alleged appearance of an affair; the fourth paragraph contains the requisite denials of the affair…
Can you be clearer on what you thought the writers’ focus was, and why you think they buried the “focus” of their story under the fold?
Reading it again, I still stand by my statement. The link you reference was not a follow-up at all. It was coverage of the presser McCain held the next morning. They report the news, which was that McCain denied the romantic relationship. The editor says that the article speaks for it self – which it does.
The article which is titled “For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk,” (nothing about sex) starts off as you describe. However the fifth paragraph begins, “But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career.” It then goes on for 29 paragraphs about McCain’s history of taking positions on government ethics before returning to the relationship with Iseman, and explaining, “Mr. McCain’s confidence in his ability to distinguish personal friendships from compromising connections was at the center of questions advisers raised about Ms. Iseman.”