Every now and then you see a bunch of folks at a once proud institution do this lemming thing: they gather in huddle and then rush straight toward a precipice. Lots of folk call out in warning as they pass, and they nod politely and point to show that, indeed, they see the precipice. But in a steady if not always fast stride, they go right off the edge. CBS did it in 2004. Now it is the New York Times' turn.
Today the Times ran with this:
Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
When news organizations reported that Mr. McCain had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement. Mr. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. McCain led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.
Now it is obvious what we are supposed to think here:
1) that John McCain had an affair with a lobbyist 30 years his junior (that age thing was a nice touch); and
2) that he compromised his responsibilities as a Senator in order to advance her business interests.
But notice that the Times does not come close to explicitly saying that; nor do they suggest it or argue for it anywhere in the story.
Here is what the "story" does amount to: at one point in the 2000 presidential campaign, unnamed members of the McCain organization thought that there might be something going on between their candidate and Ms. Iseman. Because of these suspicions, campaign operatives took steps to keep the two of them away from one another. We are also told that McCain wrote letters to Federal agencies on behalf of Ms. Iseman and her clients. That's all there is. That's the front page story: innuendo based on vague suspicions, eight years cold.
The obvious question, of course, is whether their suspicion are true, and whether Senator McCain did anything inappropriate on Ms. Iseman's behalf. Not the slightest evidence is produced that would help the reader answer those questions. Indeed, they are never raised. That can only be because Times had nothing more than it produced here, which is to say that it had no story.
Worse still, the ghost of a story that they do present rests entirely on two anonymous sources, both of whom are acknowledged to be unhappy with McCain. Their testimony is said to be corroborated by that of "others," but the others are equally anonymous.
In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.
Meanwhile, everyone involved who does have a name, including the Senator and Ms. Iseman, deny the story and contradict virtually every element of it. This does not quite rise to the level of memogate. There are as yet no forged documents, or typewriter repairmen passed off as handwriting experts. But it surely comes in for the silver medal. It is a ridiculously shoddy piece of journalism, and tells anyone who doesn't already know that the Times culture is incompetent and corrupt.
And like the Dan Rather's last stand, the story has quickly shifted from its intended target to the source itself. In fact the hit piece on McCain became the focus of an expose before it was even printed. About two hours after I read the New York Times' piece, I got the New Republic piece about the New York Times' piece by e-mail.
[W]hat's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady.
The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice.
At one point, the piece suggestively states: "In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.
What happened? The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair.
In other words, the Times had three months to think about this as they strode toward the precipice. Last night about dinner time, they stepped off it.
Recent Comments