The New York Times story about Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain that first appeared online Wednesday and in print today makes me extremely nervous.
I sure hope the storys right.
Not for any political reasons, mind you, though I have concerns there, as well. But my worry is about the credibility of the newspaper industry.
The New York Times on its Web site Wednesday night broke a news story that suggested McCain may have had a romantic relationship with a female telecommunciations lobbyist prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. The Times quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Vicki Iseman to stay away from each other.
The Times story does not flat out assert that there was a romantic relationship and offers no evidence that there was. The implication was made through the quoting of former aides who were worried that the relationship had become romantic, and were concerned about the appearance of their close ties. Deep in the story, two unnamed former associates are quoted as saying McCain acknowledged to them that hed behaved inappropriately with Iseman.
To me, and Im sure to others, the reliance on anonymous former staffers and the tap-dance wording about the relationship makes me uneasy.
In both stories, McCain and Iseman denied having a romantic relationship.
So why was it a story?
While most of the public attention has focused on the possibility of a romantic relationship, the more serious implication made in the Times story is that McCain provided political favors for Isemans clients. The Times story goes back to McCains involvement in the Keating Five savings and loan scandal in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It highlights what it considers to be a history of contradictions in McCains words and actions on ethics. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office, the Times writes.
History tells us the public probably doesnt much care about the charge that McCain doesnt practice what he preaches in regard to ethics. They should care, but they dont.
They might not even care about whether McCain and Iseman had a romantic relationship, but theyll be much more interested in the question. And, fairly or unfairly, the publics opinion of the New York Times story probably will be based on whether they believe McCain had an affair.
The Times to an extent was its own worst enemy in this regard, choosing to lead a lengthy, meaty story about political ethics with speculation about a romantic relationship. The tactic, certainly, is questionable. It may not speak particularly well of the Times, or of newspapers in general.
The Times also already is enduring a lot of criticism about the timing of the story. It reportedly had been investigating the McCain-Iseman relationship for about a year. There were Internet reports last December days before Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary of the Times investigation.
Frankly, the Times probably cant win in this argument. Had it published the story earlier this winter, it would have been accused of spoiling McCains candidacy before the primary process began. It is ironic that in December few gave McCain any chance of winning the Republican Partys presidential nomination.
By running the story now, the Times is being accused of trying to sabotage the Republican Partys presumptive nominee. Had it wait even longer, it would have been accused of attempting to influence the general election outcome.
Im not so much concerned about the timing. Times Executive Editor Bill Keller on Thursday said, On the timing, our policy is we publish stories when they are ready. Which is the way newspapers work, whether readers believe it or not. I believe Keller when he says there was no motive in the timing of the story.
But the potential impact of the story on the 2008 campaign is undeniable. It could severely damage McCain, and contribute to a Democratic Party victory in November. Or it could have no political impact at all.
The Times, of course, does not and should not consider the impact when deciding whether to publish the story. Its lone concerns should be whether the story is correct and whether it is newsworthy.
Its certainly newsworthy. I just hope, for his sake and for ours, that the story was correct.
I sure hope the storys right.
Not for any political reasons, mind you, though I have concerns there, as well. But my worry is about the credibility of the newspaper industry.
The New York Times on its Web site Wednesday night broke a news story that suggested McCain may have had a romantic relationship with a female telecommunciations lobbyist prior to his failed presidential campaign in 2000. The Times quoted anonymous aides as saying they had urged McCain and Vicki Iseman to stay away from each other.
The Times story does not flat out assert that there was a romantic relationship and offers no evidence that there was. The implication was made through the quoting of former aides who were worried that the relationship had become romantic, and were concerned about the appearance of their close ties. Deep in the story, two unnamed former associates are quoted as saying McCain acknowledged to them that hed behaved inappropriately with Iseman.
To me, and Im sure to others, the reliance on anonymous former staffers and the tap-dance wording about the relationship makes me uneasy.
In both stories, McCain and Iseman denied having a romantic relationship.
So why was it a story?
While most of the public attention has focused on the possibility of a romantic relationship, the more serious implication made in the Times story is that McCain provided political favors for Isemans clients. The Times story goes back to McCains involvement in the Keating Five savings and loan scandal in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It highlights what it considers to be a history of contradictions in McCains words and actions on ethics. He has criticized the cozy ties between lawmakers and lobbyists, but is relying on corporate lobbyists to donate their time running his presidential race and recently hired a lobbyist to run his Senate office, the Times writes.
History tells us the public probably doesnt much care about the charge that McCain doesnt practice what he preaches in regard to ethics. They should care, but they dont.
They might not even care about whether McCain and Iseman had a romantic relationship, but theyll be much more interested in the question. And, fairly or unfairly, the publics opinion of the New York Times story probably will be based on whether they believe McCain had an affair.
The Times to an extent was its own worst enemy in this regard, choosing to lead a lengthy, meaty story about political ethics with speculation about a romantic relationship. The tactic, certainly, is questionable. It may not speak particularly well of the Times, or of newspapers in general.
The Times also already is enduring a lot of criticism about the timing of the story. It reportedly had been investigating the McCain-Iseman relationship for about a year. There were Internet reports last December days before Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary of the Times investigation.
Frankly, the Times probably cant win in this argument. Had it published the story earlier this winter, it would have been accused of spoiling McCains candidacy before the primary process began. It is ironic that in December few gave McCain any chance of winning the Republican Partys presidential nomination.
By running the story now, the Times is being accused of trying to sabotage the Republican Partys presumptive nominee. Had it wait even longer, it would have been accused of attempting to influence the general election outcome.
Im not so much concerned about the timing. Times Executive Editor Bill Keller on Thursday said, On the timing, our policy is we publish stories when they are ready. Which is the way newspapers work, whether readers believe it or not. I believe Keller when he says there was no motive in the timing of the story.
But the potential impact of the story on the 2008 campaign is undeniable. It could severely damage McCain, and contribute to a Democratic Party victory in November. Or it could have no political impact at all.
The Times, of course, does not and should not consider the impact when deciding whether to publish the story. Its lone concerns should be whether the story is correct and whether it is newsworthy.
Its certainly newsworthy. I just hope, for his sake and for ours, that the story was correct.
