On The Media

So it looks like the dirty part of the campaign has commenced. What is amazing is that if John McCain has a 35 year public record that rumors and innuendo from 28 years are the best that opponents can unearth to try to undermine his candidacy. Note that the Times writers make no direct allegations of infidelity or financial gain for political influence. I interpret the absence of such direct charges as lack of evidence to support such. Political leaders interface with many people and interests in the legislative process. John McCain and Joe Lieberman are two of the most corrageous legislators in recent history as they had the courage to depart from the "party ideology" and seek a third path to build a centrist consensus on important national needs. My encouragement to the Times is "keep digging" as so far you have only increased my confidence in the candidate -- but next time have the academic integrity to cite your evidence and list your sources.

Here is a different take on this whole mess.

The Gray Lady beat out competitors sniffing around their research for the story. She has survived Jason Blair and his editors' hit on her reputation fairly handily. She knows she can survive the criticism over this even more easily. Two months from now it will be nothing but an historical footnote with which to wrap fish.

In the meantime, she has immediately and significantly helped McCain solidify his support among the Conservative chattering class, which is done not because they favor him. It is because it benefits her by providing for an election which might have become so one sided that, after the nominations are finally locked up, the reading public would lose interest. Without a horse race, especially without that other lady to campaign against, they assume all but the partisan zealots would go to sleep.

Becoming another of his so-called Liberal foils, the Times has somewhat evened up and energized the entire campaign for President and assured greater readership and better ad revenues, especially from campaign coffers. Money isn’t Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, it is green and the New York Times is first and foremost a business.

The Times will get away with this. Pinch should just make the Ombudsman the editior and send Keller over to the Drudge Report.

I think your reporting is usually spot-on, but I have to say you missed some big points on this one.

First, you presented the entire story as entirely anonymously sourced, but it wasn't. They had John Weaver on the record as saying that he had warned the lobbyist off.

Second, it appears that Keller was content to sit on the story, until they got some enquiries from The New Republic, who was preparing a piece on the Times's foot-dragging on the story. So it would have been interesting to get some discussion about whether or not this prompted the Times to go with something that they weren't entirely comfortable going with. Your piece never brought up this angle.

Lastly, in McCain's subsequent press conference, he offered up a couple of whoopers, which were subsequently flagged by Newsweek and the WaPo. The big news here is that the press actually called McCain on his whoopers. Could this be the beginning of the end of the fabled press-McCain love affair?

OK, on this last one, I realize that these facets emerged after you recorded your piece. So I'll cut you some slack on that.

But I'm hoping that you'll revisit this story next week, so I can find out more about how the Gray Lady sat on a story, then rushed into print with something that seemed to emphasize what they couldn't really prove and deemphasized the truly interesting (and defensible) parts, all because they thought they had to defend themselves against TNR.

Where's the story in a "non-scandal" that did not occur a decade ago? There would have been even less of a "non-story" if Weaver were the only source. This one will go less than a cycle.

I thought the Cuba story on the Times journalist pushing Castro propaganda as clear evidence that "journalism," more often than not, has an agenda. At least the Times called themselves on this one. Who from OTM is going to do the story behind the story on Bob's editorial from last week?

"Don't tell me the truth, it won't change my mind because I won't believe it anyway."

McLiar proves it again. Some links to help improve the Mcfaithful's critical reading skills.

Broadcaster Lowell "Bud" Paxson yesterday contradicted statements from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communications Commission on Paxson's behalf.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202634_pf.html

Mitt Romney and GOP, Not Dems, Behind McCain Swift-Boat ‘Smear Campaign’

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/02/21/timing-sourcing-suggest-gop-behind-mccain-smear/

The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html

An apparent contradiction in his response to lobbyist story.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505/output/print

"That's not a McStain, that's a McBurglur."