Times Doesn't Pass The Smell Test: Seattle P-I

Captain's Quarters ^ | Feb. 22, 2008 | by Ed Morrissey

[jdm]

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer will never get mistaken as a conservative publication. It routinely editorializes in support of liberal causes and candidates, and it has come in for plenty of criticism for its decisions on publication decisions. They also routinely publish stories from their subscription to the New York Times syndication product. Today, however, David McCumber explains why he took a pass on the Times' hit piece on John McCain:

Obviously, the reporters, Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton, are not working for me. I have no way, other than their excellent reputations, of specifically evaluating their sourcing. That job fell to Bill Keller, the editor of The New York Times, who had held the story, citing concerns about whether the reporters had "nailed it," long enough to fatally fracture the newspaper's relationship with Thompson. She left today to go back to work for The Washington Post.

Admitting that Keller was in a better position to vet the sourcing and facts than I am as, basically, a reader, let's assume that every source is solid and every fact attributed in the story to an anonymous source is true. You're still dealing with a possible appearance of impropriety, eight years ago, that is certainly unproven and probably unprovable.

Where is the solid evidence of this lobbyist improperly influencing (or bedding) McCain? I didn't see it in the half-dozen times I read the story. In paragraphs fifty-eight through sixty-one of the sixty-five-paragraph story, the Times points out two matters in which McCain took actions favorable to the lobbyist's clients -- that were also clearly consistent with his previously stated positions.

That's pretty thin beer. ....

This story seems to me not to pass the smell test. It makes the innuendo of impropriety, even corruption, without backing it up. I was taught that before you run something in the newspaper that could ruin somebody's reputation, you'd better have your facts very straight indeed.

"Nailed" would be one way to describe that.

Even the Times' allies have run for cover on this story. The Times ran a story that actually didn't allege anything except that two disgruntled former staffers claim that they thought McCain might be too close to Iseman. That's it. There's no there there, to quote Dorothy Parker. (via Michelle Malkin)

[misterrob]

Keller should be fired....

of course swine will take air before that happens

[Soliton]

While everyone thinks the Times has failed, the Clinton camp rejoices. After Tuesday’s primaries, all the news was about Hillary’s last stand in TX. By releasing the report when they did, the NYT changed the news. The Clintons are famous for this tactic. Bill bombed foreign countries on the day Monica was to testify. Remember?

[WL-law]

That's it. There's no there there, to quote Dorothy Parker.

Didn't Gertrude Stein say that?

[WL-law]

It was Gertrude Stein — she was saying that to famously describe Oakland, California.

[MizSterious]

What’s sad is, a lot of Freepers bought into this. Just amazing. People can dislike McCain as a candidate for President, but it shouldn’t blind them to what’s obviously a hit-piece. If there’s real dirt out there, I’m sure it will come out, along with documentation. That’s how to go after a bad candidate, not with lies. (And not even very good lies, apparently. The NYT is like a bunch a amateurs at this—ask Dan Rather!)

[HappyinAZ]

Great Point...I hope all those “foaming-at-the-mouth” freepers willtake a breath.

Protect our soldiers and the unborn and vote for Mccain!

[sionnsar]

Say WA? Evergreen State ping

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.

Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

[tobyhill]

The reporters are about to turn on Keller. Get out the popcorn.

[ASOC]

If the *PI* takes a pass on a chance to slam a Republican, it must ‘thin beer (Rainer?)” indeed.

I do wonder sometimes if NYT = Clinton slime machine.......wait till they turn on O’Bama

[nyyankeefan]

the ny slimes article.....should have been written by jason blair...it would have had more validity!!!

[dashing doofus]

All this conflict, Obama vs. Hillary, Times vs. Seattle PI, Slick Willie’s tantrums, Obamarama’s wife’s newfound pride in America, etc. will make it obvious to Times writers that the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is back at work.

The VRWC should tone it down, because those Times reporters are sharp cookies, and will surely uncover the truth.

[rickomatic]

While everyone thinks the Times has failed, the Clinton camp rejoices. After Tuesday’s primaries, all the news was about Hillary’s last stand in TX. By releasing the report when they did, the NYT changed the news. The Clintons are famous for this tactic. Bill bombed foreign countries on the day Monica was to testify. Remember?

You, my friend have hit the nail on the head. I've been saying this very same thing since the "story" hit the front page. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to attack McCain at this time in the election cycle. It makes no sense to waste ammunition on someone who is already cruising into the nomination. It's way too early.
The Clintons are the ONLY ones who could have, and in fact HAVE benefitted from this story by getting Hillary's campaign implosion off the front pages of evey newspaper in the country and off every radio talk show and every TV news show, both over the air and cable. They are also the only ones with the inside clout to make it happen now.
I look at it like a basketball game. What does a team do when their opponent is wiping the floor with them, especially at a critical time of a game? They call a time out. If for no other reason, to break the rythum of the other team. In a diabolical way, it's genius. It's genius, because it worked!!

[GATOR NAVY]

What’s sad is, a lot of Freepers bought into this. Just amazing. People can dislike McCain as a candidate for President, but it shouldn’t blind them to what’s obviously a hit-piece.

Bull. I haven't seen anyone here who actually believes the story. I have seen many say it's pretty damn funny to watch McCain's surprise and shock as the NYT turns on their favorite "maverick" (my personal opinion).

I have also seen McCainiacs telling us "see, now you have to support McCain-the NYT is attacking him". And that's some sorry sh*t.

[MizSterious]

You haven't read this thread yet, I guess. When it started, the original poster had put "he looks guilty" in the title, but that was later removed after there were some complaints. But several posters on that thread came right out and said they believed the NYT. Check #58, #60, #73, #88, #91, and several others where people believed he "looked" or "acted" guilty. Yup, they bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

[DPMD]

Just so it doesn’t go unsaid: The P-I doesn’t gain any legitimacy by jumping on the bandwagon to criticize its sister publication in NY. It’s still a bird toilet.

[Soliton]

You, my friend have hit the nail on the head

being right once in 9 years on FR was just luck, but thanks anyway

[apocalypto]

After John McCain’s amnesty plan? He will never get my vote. Ah, poetic justice. He lied about Mitt Romney, and now it is being done to him. The story may also be true. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[scrabblehack]

Who said it first, Dorothy Parker or Gertrude Stein?
(”There is no there there?”)