In today’s NY Times, Public Editor Clark Hoyt has a lot to say about the McCain article kerfuffle, but this is the heart of it:
“….But in the absence of a smoking gun, I asked Keller why he decided to run what he had.
“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”
I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.
The stakes are just too big. As the flamboyant Edwin Edwards of Louisiana once said, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.”
The pity of it is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising “poor judgment” by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients.
Yep. The Times blew it coming and going. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, there’s a new pattern of such behavior.
The NYT is proving once again that its editors are ninnies. Harry Shear, of all people, askes the right question today over at HUFFPO. The TIMES and WaPo articles both mention the lobyyists on McCain’s staff and WaPo says that some are working sans salary. That would be no salary from the McCain people. Do you think they’re donating their time? (That’s still a gift to the campaign BTW) Question: Then HOW IS PAYING THEM?
Pretty good when you have to go to a member of “Spinal Tap” to ask the relevant questions.
Bad news about Republicans goes on page one above the fold. Retractions, if any, go on page 54-B.