set out to shine a spotlight on McCain's ethics, but it ended up turning a harsh light on its own ethical lapses. - 
Posted on 02/21/2008 5:23:22 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
One of two things will happen in the wake of Thursday's New York Times story that suggested John McCain may have had a "romantic relationship" nine years ago with a lobbyist who did business before the Senate Commerce Committee which he then chaired. (The story purported to be about McCain's ethics and dealings with D.C. lobbyists, in a failed attempt to gloss gossip with a patina of gravitas.)
Either new information will come forward to corroborate this weak story - based solely on the speculation - as opposed to actual knowledge - of two sources (who refused to be named and, for all we know, may have an ax to grind), and despite denials by both McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman.
Even then, the Gray Lady's reputation will suffer, because the New York Times, not John McCain, has become the story.
Or nothing new will come forward and the public will have every reason to believe that the New York Times and copycat media smeared McCain.
And the next time the Times' announces that it has lost circulation or is eliminating more newsroom positions, people will cheer, when they should be saddened. This story is bad news for the news business.
No doubt Times reporters Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton believed they had a story.
That's why newspapers have editors, to insist that reporters nail down hunches that reporters believe in their guts to be true.
That didn't happen with this story.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
This is a BIG mainstream media story, and one in which even other journalists are distancing themselves from the offending publication.
McCain needs to bury this one.
CORRECTED
I’m no fan of McCain – but it seems obvious that this is either purely sloppy journalism on the part of the NYT (not likely since it stewed for several months), or perhaps this is the most visible example of Hillary’s campaign doing some early battlefield preparation.
I assume the underlying suggestion of an extramarital relationship is not true – but I can’t say that I have a lot of reason to believe that. It seemed awkward when McCain started out with the remarks about how “Disappointed” they were with this story. Were I in that position I would be screaming from the rooftops, the veins would be bulging in my forehead and I would be ripping mad at the NYT. Somehow, given how forceful he has been in some of his past speeches – he didn’t seem to express the proper level of indignation, especially standing there with his wife.
Assuming the suggestion of an inappropriate relationship is untrue, my suggestion to McCain is this:
Offer to undergo a polygraph examination along with the lobbyist, conducted by a polygrapher of certain credentials (years of experience with FBI, professional credentials, etc.), selected by one of the NYT journalists (sic) responsible for Wednesday’s story, on 5 or 10 questions which establish the truth or falsity of his (and her) denial. Then take the exams, publish the results (which would vindicate both of them) and start beating the NYT like a rented car for the rest of the campaign.
Debra Saunders is the token conservative among their columnists.
Maybe one of the companies she was a lobbyst for was Viagra. That would explain a lot.
If new york times had anything else up their sleeves they would have put it out 8 years ago when they first brought that story out. this is stupid
set out to shine a spotlight on McCain's ethics, but it ended up turning a harsh light on its own ethical lapses. -
Very true. The New York Times has, at the very least, given the appearance of having a political agenda apart from reporting the news.
The NYT is sure to merge with Pravda. Any day now.
PS; just stole that as my new tag line!
See!
I guess leaking national security information isn’t as bad as outing a RINO.
First McCain is too old.
Then the next thing they say, he’s a Casanova!
Easy fix.
The Jayson Blair Gazette cannot sully itself!
Don’t you love it when they start eating themselves?
Sullies itself? It’s been doing the same junk for years. It’s just acting true to form.
“...The Al Qaeda Times has published so much BS in the past half century that even TV listings, sports scores and lottery numbers from that rag should be verified with an actual news source.”
Hilarious...and true.
I think it’s already backfiring. :)
The only people I’ve seen who even pretend to believe this story are MSNBC and a few RAT talking heads, and they’re not really fooling anybody, not even themselves. I don’t think Olberman even understands what the allegations are, but that doesn’t stop him from staring at the camera with his little ladies’ glasses.
I first heard that simple but true thought from a wise friend almost 20 years ago, and never forgot it.
Enjoy your new tag line.
:-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.