The press is really filled with idiots. The New York Times publishes a story accusing a presidential candidate of diddling a lobbyist without any definitive proof and they are surprised at the reaction?
We knew some readers would disagree with our decision to publish this information. After all, we wrestled with our own doubts on that score. We anticipated that it would provoke at least a brief media firestorm — and that our efforts to put Mr. McCain’s relationship with a lobbyist in a bigger context would probably get lost in the retelling.
Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction (including more than 2,400 reader comments posted on our Web site). I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.
It’s not so much a cheap shot as it is bad reporting. Get more sources, talk to the lobbyist’s friends, college roommates, anyone she may have confided in. Do your homework. Don’t accuse a man of having an affair based on the off the record recollections of disgruntled former staffers. That is below that standard the Times normally sets for itself.
Agree completely. There is a long article (too long, I think) by Paul Rosenberg at Open Left that documents their cowardice and tabloid episodes over time. It’s not a bash, just a long exposition. And a lot of philosophy as well.
I enjoy Rosenberg’s work but it’s always too long. Except on a Saturday morning when I’m stuck at home.
I thought he made a good point about bloggers criticizing the NYTimes piece when he looked at the intro to Glenn Greenwald’s piece at Salon (which I thought was well written). Greenwald delved right into the heart of the issue of McCain contradicting himself in sworn testimony. BUT he started out by saying that the whole NYTimes piece was bad journalism.
Rosenberg says:
I think that’s good advice. We should point out when the NY Times engages in bad journalism BUT should always take the opportunity to show how it has been used against Democrats in the past.
But funny enough this piece of shoddy journalism may unintentionally produce some really good journalism – namely pushing his shady dealings with lobbyists into the spotlight instead of page A 17. Folks (e.g. Isikoff) have started digging in. It might just be the end of John the Maverick.
I still can’t get past the NYT sitting on the NSA domestic spying story for a year. This just takes the NYT a notch lower.
Booman I guess we will disagree on this thing, I think the article was mainly about cozying up with a lobbiest, not about the romance part or diddling as you say although that was mentioned and more or less dismissed. He thinks it’s ok to be cozy with them.
Further info that has come out about lobbists on his campaign and senate staff suggests that his anti-lobby stance is fake. I don’t think it matters one whit if he has “diddled” her or not, doesn’t need to, one would suppose it’s his ear she wants, not his……, well you know.
Mr. ‘I never took a dime’, has taken ‘volunteer time ‘from lobbyists, so what’s the difference. So are we to believe they will expect nothing from him or will not use the access they have…
if this was HRC what would you say then, if she was in exact same situation. Personally I think you would add it to your dossier on her and think NYT had done a great service. And if it was a woman, woman situation no problem, then it proves L E S B I A N.
I don’t mind the piece, but think it’s reminiscent of what journalism has become lately – lazy, titillating, etc. The bigger story is the lobbyists he surrounds himself with and who hold important positions in his campaign – much more, from what I understand, than in HRC or Obama’s. The lesbian part of your statement just goes right over my head, especially if you’re implying that BooMan hates HRC and he’d be happy to have her proven a lesbian.
Not “Booman happy to have her proven a Lesbian”, but in general it has been implied (many times in many places) she was/is.
I don’t say Booman hates her, I do not know that, but he is definitely anti-Hillary. And the other day/week he even threw out a comment re: “HRC whacked Foster”, don’t know if it was snark, there was no snark note attached. I’m sure he can tell us if it was..
Maybe you missed all the dialogue Booman and I have had reg. HRC, over the past weeks.
No, I’ve caught it, and the Foster comment was snark.
There was no doubt in my mind that comment was snark.
It’s shocking to me that you would even question whether it was snark.
Sorry Booman, but I did question it, wasn’t sure how far your anti-Hillary mindset went. Seeing as how there are many including my very own sister, who do believe it, I thought it may have been possible that you did.. Maybe it’s not so good to throw out such comments without a snark sign attached. Things can be taken wrong.
In any case I hoped it was snark.
Anti-Hillary sentiment is one thing, but stupidity is another thing altogether. No one believes that right-wing crap about Vince Foster.
McCain is a hypocrite when it comes to ‘special interests’ or ‘lobbyists’ and that’s a story. If he was sleeping with a lobbyist with business before his committee that would be a story. The problem is the thinness of the allegation of adultery.
It’s unfair to both McCain and the woman. And any numbskull would have realized that you’ll get Dan Rathered if you accuse the Republican nominee of something horrible on this proof.
As for what I’d say about Clinton, it’s already on the record somewhere, from when the NYT’s did an analysis of how often they slept under the same roof and therefore might have have marital relations. Hint: I didn’t praise the article.
Well good for you for not praising the NYT article on HRC.
I still say the intent was not to prove adultery at all, the intent was to point out the hypocrisy of MR. straight talk express, because this was at a time when he was still reeling from the Keating scandal, was it not. Even if romance was not mentioned it would have been inferred because that’s the way people think.
He has a problem with ethics…that’s the point.
However the fallout of the article was just awful but I do think this will hurt him in the general.
It was nine years after Keating Five ended.
And I don’t know what world you would have to live in to think you can write a story on the front-page of the NYT’s with allegations of adultery by the man that just won the Republican nomination and that anyone is gonna care about any other part of the story.
I think the Washington Post proved you could write the story without making the affair the lead in to the topic.
The Times led with the affair. There is no evidence of an affair just vague allegations. That lowers the credibility of the Times and when the credibility is lowered on one part of the story then the right wingers can shrug and say – what credibility do you have on the rest of the story.
All the other journalists like Isikoff who are now pursuing the real story are having an uphill battle because the Times used the uncorroborated story of the affair.
So yes, I agree with BooMan that the Times was stupid even if I’m less concerned about the ‘reputation’ of McCain or that lobbyist.
In listening to several editors discuss the sexual angle it was agreed that the story was that the aides had become convinced there was a sexual relationship, and to leave that part out would be to misrepresent their fears. For what it’s worth.
But they didn’t need to lead with that part.
The fact that people including his aides speculate about John McCain’s sex life shouldn’t be the lead in NY Times story any more than the fact that people speculate about the Clinton’s sex life deserved front page treatment in the NY Times.
If there was a story about him doing favors for her clients then that was the story. If they felt it was necessary to include speculation about why he did those favors it should have come at the end. But the question is – why should the NY Times feel it is necessary to include speculation at all. Just lay the facts out and let him explain why he did it. And then fact check his story while working on other angles.
I think there are two facets to the story: the link to the lobbyist in question and the turmoil within the campaign that it supposedly caused. If the aides were convinced that the relationship had become sexual, and concerned enough to move to “protect the senator from himself” or however they put it, then the reasons for their concern should be made clear. But they really needed to have a little corroborating evidence…
the bottom line is that the story wasn’t ready to publish.
therein lies the real problem.
the NYT may be many things, but stupid is not one that immediately springs to mind. as someone pointed out in another comment thread, the question of cui bono needs to be asked.
by leading with the sexual innuendo, they have effectively clouded the issue and framed the dialog in such a manner that the real issue, that of the “broader patterns in his political career”, as joe conason puts it at salon, are pushed aside.
it’s a distraction, and the investigations and questioning of the real scandal and hypocrisy will, indeed, be shrugged of as a liberal media witch hunt, and voila, the issue becomes a moot point.
there’s method in the madness, and it appears to have been a very successful gambit …witness the bandwidth being wasted re: journalistic ethics, blah, blah, blah, all over the intertubes… exposing the issue in a manner that will allow it to be summarily dismissed and long forgotten by november.
my cynicism is boundless.
That was the point (hypocrisy on lobbyists & ethics), but I think they made it very poorly. Other publications have done much better with interviews (Paxon, for example) and a recitation of his scummy past. I’ll say it a second time–it looked like the tatters of an article that had been lawyered from hell to breakfast. They should have rewritten it and focused on what they knew and what was already in the public domain, or waited until they had the other items nailed.
I gotta say I’m not as outraged as everyone else seems to be about this story. First of all, the NYT did NOT accuse McCain of having an affair. Instead, the article reported that his staffers suspected him of having an affair. That’s an important distinction. To be fair, let’s not forget that the Times included the outright denials of McCain and whatshername. Where’s the innacuracy? Where’s the “smear”? Both facts (the concern of McCain’s advisers and his/her denial) are clear in the story.
Second, I keep hearing complaints that the Times story wasn’t adequately supported by their research. The story indicates that they heard the same story, independently, from more than one former staffer. This isn’t one rogue unhappy former ally, it’s several sources. What standard do you want them to meet before going to press? A signed admission from McCain?
Third, the media (and blog posts like this one) are blowing the sex angle out of proportion. The story indicates that whether it was sexual or not, McCain’s relationship with this lobbyist was more cozy than seems proper. That’s an absolutely valid point to make, and deserves attention. The sex thing is a red herring and it’s unfortunate that we’re allowing it to distract us from the more important question raised by the story.
Very good comment that goes along with what I said above, and you made some very good points.
When I first read the article, before I read any dissent, I did not think they accused him of adultery and I agree that the SEX side has been blown out of proportion (by many including the blogosphere) and it has distracted from the real issue of the piece.
I think the following, excerpt from the linked article above is important to add to your points.
Thanks for that…that’s a really important point. The Times is now being accused of careless and inaccurate reporting, when in fact their story would have been less accurate had they edited out that portion of what their sources were telling them. I find that to be a particularly delicious irony.
Josh Marshall –TPM notes with links to WaPo piece – McCain Disputed On 1999 Meeting
As usual the sex scrubs the ethics and Huck is waiting on the Angel’s wings.
.
TUCSON (Washington Post) – When McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis , co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington’s lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.
Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O’ Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.
…
McCain recently hired Mark Buse to be his Senate chief of staff. Buse led the Commerce Committee staff in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and was until last fall a lobbyist for ML Strategies, representing eBay, Goldman Sachs Group, Cablevision, Tenneco and Novartis Pharmaceuticals.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."What the stupid piece did was open the door for a variety of smart pieces.
McCain’s ability to make fools out of the press all these years by being so PressAvailable has proven to be the perfect ruse for him to work the system and now, his career can of worms where he’s laundered abusive corp favors into acceptance may just finally see the light of day.
I doubt he did have a sexual relationship, I wish he had because I think instead what was happening was the nexus of a lobbyist who had corp money in her pocket; big players with big needs and a Sen who had already demonstrated he had an addiction to gaming the system.
The irony is that he’s living, breathing proof-the guy defines himself 180 degrees from who he really is and all the press spent years searching ways to affirm that when all along he is the very epitome of a lobbyists’ wet dream.