NY Times: The Record of Paper by Jayme Evans

by Jayme Evans

NY Times: The Record of Paper

February 25, 2008 01:00 PM EST

The New York Times; The Paper of Record; The home of all the news that’s fit to print has finally executed the ambush of John McCain that they have been planning for months.

Last Thursday’s hit piece, entitled "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk" was long on rehashing decades-old charges of corruption and ties to Charles Keating, while devoid of all but insinuation and innuendo when it comes to the article’s substantive charge of a McCain affair with 40 year-old telecommunications lobbyist Linda Iseman.

To be perfectly clear, I am not a supporter of John McCain. I never have been. He is a great American for his service to his country, but that is where my admiration ends. He is unbalanced. His uneven keel, holier-than-thou attitude when it comes to influence peddling and corruption, his unpredictability, his capitulation on illegal immigration and the removal of his finger from the immigration dike enabling the illegal invasion of the United States all mean that he will never get my vote. But after reading this piece in its entirety four times and taking into account recent history, one can only conclude this was an unwarranted ambush by the Times that should be summarily retracted.

The 3,000 word piece went into great detail about McCain’s previously documented past as well as his perceived recklessness. It cited two anonymous ex-McCain aides as primary sources and contained a scant 50 words about the most damaging allegation; a sexual relationship with lobbyist Iseman during McCain’s 2000 run for the White House. It contained only one source who would go on the record; former strategist John Weaver, who stated that he met with Iseman because her involvement as a lobbyist could undermine their campaign’s message of reform, not because of an affair as the Times suggests.

The article’s premise has been attacked in both alternative and mainstream media. It has been criticized as ”highly implausible”, a “giant leap” and an “embarrassment”. It has also been widely speculated that the article was rushed in order to beat the release of a competing article by New Republic Magazine, which was (ironically) critical of the Times’ handling of the story about John McCain.

The Times’ Executive Editor, Bill Keller defended the article’s newsworthiness, saying that it met their standards for fairness and accuracy. He also brushed off the criticism in a Friday follow-up, downplaying the sex angle and focusing on McCain’s “association” with Iseman. In other words, Keller essentially admitted to a bait-and-switch. Bait the reader with salacious accusations of an improper sexual relationship and switch to old charges of corruption to exploit a perceived chink in McCain’s armor of reform, thereby planting the seed of hypocrisy in the minds of prospective McCain voters.

But while Keller stood his ground, Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt stated in a Sunday Op-ed that the story suggesting McCain had an affair with Iseman should not have been written, adding that Keller’s explanation that the piece was not about an affair “belies the article’s narrative”. He concluded (as did I and many others) that if those sorts of allegations are to be levelled against a presumptive presidential candidate, you’re going to have to do better than innuendo.

The Times admitted working on the story for months, since November, yet endorsed McCain in January. They also admitted asking for interviews with McCain to get his side of the story in December. The writers defended this divided allegiance as I expected they would; by claiming that an endorsement gives an appearance of blanket support (which it indeed does), and that the Editorial and News departments are separate entities that did not consult with each other about their activities.

The fact remains that the writers did read about the McCain endorsement in their own paper and proceeded to go to print without the substance that virtually everyone who has commented on this story believes you should have before doing so.

The New York Times seems to revel in its self-professed status as “The Paper of Record”. But the mounting record of paper rolling from it’s presses containing personal attacks completely lacking in factual, historical, statistical or scientific evidence will one day serve to entomb that old bag so affectionately known as the old Gray Lady.