NYT's Public Editor: McCain Story Lacked Smoking Gun
For those who might not have already seen it, The New York Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, criticizes the paper's leadership today for running this week's piece on John McCain without uncovering "independent proof" of an affair.
Hoyt also writes that the article "had repercussions for both McCain and The Times," adding that, "The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics — sex — it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance."
He concludes: "If you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
The article didn't say they were romantically involved... it cited sources who had worried that they were engaged in an affair. It seems like our fellow Americans need to go back and finish their high school degrees so they can learn to analyze, instead of have 'truth' cooked up on a platter (which is not the function of journalism).
This is simply backlash from a damaged President coming out in favor of a damaged candidate. It's still a big deal as are ALL of McCain's lobby connections. I mean c'mon, one of his chief advisers, lobbyist Charlie Black, admittedly lobbies clients from his cell phone from the Straight Talk bus. Companies with business before McCain in the Senate Commerce Committee. This is beyond unethical.
tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/top_mccain_adviser_says_he_doe.php
It's still a big deal as are ALL of McCain's lobby connections. I mean c'mon, - So then if must be a big deal that Obama and Clinton both have lobbyists that advise their campaign and work for them, or it must bother you that Obama bought a house from a lobbyist that Obama couldn't afford but for the help of this person payed four hundred thousands dollars below asking price and the same person is now serving time for corruption and fraud...I guest your not voting in this election unless Nader throws in his hat.
It's still a big deal as are ALL of McCain's lobby connections. I mean c'mon, - So then if must be a big deal that Obama and Clinton both have lobbyists that advise their campaign and work for them, or it must bother you that Obama bought a house from a lobbyist that Obama couldn't afford but for the help of this person payed four hundred thousands dollars below asking price and the same person is now serving time for corruption and fraud...I guest your not voting in this election unless Nader throws in his hat.
It's still a big deal as are ALL of McCain's lobby connections. I mean c'mon, - So then if must be a big deal that Obama and Clinton both have lobbyists that advise their campaign and work for them, or it must bother you that Obama bought a house from a lobbyist that Obama couldn't afford but for the help of this person payed four hundred thousands dollars below asking price and the same person is now serving time for corruption and fraud...I guest your not voting in this election unless Nader throws in his hat.
It's still a big deal as are ALL of McCain's lobby connections. I mean c'mon, - So then if must be a big deal that Obama and Clinton both have lobbyists that advise their campaign and work for them, or it must bother you that Obama bought a house from a lobbyist that Obama couldn't afford but for the help of this person payed four hundred thousands dollars below asking price and the same person is now serving time for corruption and fraud...I guest your not voting in this election unless Nader throws in his hat.
it's funny, hoyt is just as wrong as the guy he criticized... Keller had no substance to accuse McCain of having an affair, yet Hoyt has no basis to suggest McCain was guilty of wrong doing or bad judgement regarding McCain and the lobbyists. Every senator has relationships with lobbyists. Just because Hoyt says McCain's are complex doesn't make it so. In comparison to what one would ask? Based on what facts? I'm sorry, you're a journalist Mr. Hoyt? Writing a letter to the FCC urging them to act on a decision they were stalling on for years is not only perfectly legal, but it was McCain's job as an overseer of the FCC. The unfortunate part of the romance portion of the article is that it clouded the real failure of the article-- that the lobbyist accusations were even more groundless. No one knows if or why McCain's aides sat down with Iseman. Maybe they thought she had a drug problem, or thought she was hitting on McCain. We'll never know. The true crime of the NYTimes article isn't what they printed, it's what they left out. McCain's camp provided the Times with a dozen instances whereby he acted against Iseman's client. Why wasn't that even mentioned by Hoyt or Keller? Sorry Hoyt, you're journalistic sense is hardly better then Kellers.