Vicki Iseman: New Republic Explores Scandal Inside New York Times

The New Republic:

Last night, around dinnertime, The New York Times posted on its website a 3,000-word investigation detailing Senator John McCain's connections to a telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. The controversial piece, written by Washington bureau reporters Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn Thompson, Stephen Labaton, and David Kirkpatrick, and published in this morning's paper, explores the possibility that the Republican presidential candidate may have had an affair with the 40-year-old blond-haired lobbyist for the telecommunications industry while he chaired the Senate Commerce Committee in the late-1990s.

Beyond its revelations, however, what'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.

Read the whole story: The New Republic

Comments

[jgfox]

1. How could the Times “support” his nomination if they had this “information”?

2. Why was it delayed so long and why wasn’t there more substantiation.

3. Why was there no mention of the 20 or so pages of written response to reporter questions that McCain and Bennett provided?

4. How in good conscience could the editors allow such misleading and emotional laden sentences as below:

5. “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 …. “

6. "Jim Rutenberg, 50, and Stephen Labaton, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to the editors, even the appearance of a close bond ...."

I could quote many more unsubstantiated claims and innuendoes, but perhaps Wikipedia ‘s definition of propaganda describes this article best:

“Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.”

If you are going to do a hit piece, you should have been a bit more subtle. But I’m sure that this misstep will be corrected in the future as “practice makes perfect.”

Princeton Junction, NJ

[lboucher]

McCain denied this morning that he cheated on his wife Cindy, appearing with her at a press conference to insist: “I am very disappointed in the New York Times piece. It’s not true.” He also explained that he had spoken with Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in an attempt to set the record straight and persuade the paper to spike the story. Keller appears to have made the decision to run it.

This is where it gets interesting.

In a September 2006 New York magazine story, journalist Joe Hagan described the circumstances behind Keller’s marriage to his second wife, the French gin-namesake Emma Gilbey (who is also an ex-something of U.S. Senator John Kerry, but I digress…) and his divorce from National Public Radio reporter Ann Cooper.

Here’s the important bit from the 2006 New York piece:

… Keller wrote one last piece on South Africa, an article for the Times Magazine about Nelson Mandela’s wife, Winnie, in which he cited a book called The Lady: The Life and Times of Winnie Mandela. The following week, the magazine published a letter by the book’s author [Emma Gilbey] …

After reading the letter, Keller called Gilbey, a British journalist living in New York, and asked her to coffee at the Times cafeteria. Gilbey, at the time, had a reputation as something of a power-dater; her exes included Senator John Kerry and Pink Floyd guitarist David Gilmour. An affair ensued, which shocked Keller’s friends. “I felt bad for everyone involved,” says Stephen Engelberg, a former Times reporter. “This was not characteristic behavior at all. I wouldn’t pretend to be Bill’s psychologist, but he didn’t get a red sports car, so …”

… Two years after they met, Gilbey was pregnant, Keller was divorced from Cooper, and he had a new job as [Times] managing editor.

Glass houses. I’m just saying.

[Horst]

Given the Times' current emphasis, I'm surprised that Keller didn't have a gay affair.

[concentric1]

I just had a thought. Could it be that the leadership of the Republican Party - so disgruntled with their soon to be nominee (McCain) might be the source of the dirt given to the NYT article. Could it be that their anonymous sources have not been identified because they may come from the ranks of Buchanan, Romney, Rush, Coulter, etc. I find their recent advocacy for McCain interesting (Me thinks they do protest too much). Let's say they get McCain to go before the national media and deny all charges only to drop the other shoe two or three days later knowing that McCain will be forced to withdraw from the race as an unacceptable nominee only to be replaced by Romney -heir apparent to the crown without ever having to go through any primaries or caucus activity. Which would explain why Romney "suspended" his campaign and Huckabee refused to withdraw because they all knew they held trump cards to his demise and they would publicly humiliate him regarding information that GOP was well aware of before last evening. Then the GOP could easily state that they put all their support in defending McCain against the liberal press and he lied to them - allowing them a free pass to dump McCain and go to their true conservative selection (Romney). Think about it. This is too neatly packaged.

[Average]

The NYT is no longer fit for the bottom of a bird cage.

[ornery]

"The Ginsburg marijuana mudball was a slimy little thing, but it was craftily thrown", as the WSJ said of the story that sank Doug Ginsburg's nom by Reagan to the Supreme Court.

Vickigate's timing, trajectory, and velocity rival that marijuana mudball.

But I can't say I'm too unhappy with the good gray lady.

This story probably elects Barack President.

Who's going to defend zipper-loose McCain?

You, Slick Willy?

No, Vickigate oddly parallels Jack Ryan Sexclubgate in the Illinois 04 Senate race--you know, the one that brought Alan Keyes to the rescue.

(You can't make this stuff up.)

If I didn't think Barack is fated to be President before I read the Vickigate story, I do now.

[scampy123]

Do Americans really need the Adams family in the White House?
This old fraud McCain and his blonde Morticia will be a bigger disaster than Bush.

[ornery]

I thought you were refering to John & John Q Adams and was going to say, don't worry, the last of that line died out with John Mason rip.

[Horst]

No doubt Obama is a cool dude...but people like Putin are going to eat him alive.

[sklfcats]

Just what we need, another rag magazine/n­ewspaper.. They should have been a little better than to stoop to idle gossip. Shame on them...

[nanotubz]

But they still supported McCain in the primaries, even as the story was being developed. The right hand and the left hand not knowing what's going down? apparently the editorial board and the editor co-exist in two parallel dimensions that only intersect on the printed page.

[ariuszme]

...
OT

SUPPORT HILLARY, UPLOAD YOUR VIDEOS AND TELL US ALL WHY!

http://hillaryspeaksforme.com/

http://hillaryspeaksforme.com/

http://hillaryspeaksforme.com/


GREAT SITE CHECK IT OUT!

[Bystander]

The Jason Blair Journal (aka NYT) IS the scandal. Front page story of innuendo, without proof, and based on unnamed sources...­"journalis­m" NYT style.

[nunzia]

"private matters"!!??
What're nuts. This is a lobbyist and a senator we're talking about. It's not about SEX. It's about FAVORS. Like bills passed, bills blocked, taxes, offshore money, corporate leniency, regulations not imposed, codes violated, we don't know yet what/whether he did for her. Get it?
Nobody gives a damned what he/they did with his penis.

[SubparDude]

:

A clear case of "Quid pro Quim."

.

[jkbowman]

I'm reserving judgment, but if the NY Times doesn't print something more substantive on McCain, all they've accomplished is to 1) unite the Republican Party overnight, and 2) turn off Republican and independent voters who might have been leaning left.

For those who think they did this to help Obama, all I can say is that Obama didn't need any help, anywhere. The ONLY Democrat who needed help is the candidate they endorsed---Hillary Clinton

[bikerdude]

Why is it that when the NYT drops a bomb like this, it is always shrouded in possible impropriety? They held off this story for months, affecting the Republican primary, and then when it is finally released, it appears to be much supposition. If they released this, even as a possibility, Romney would still be in the race. I have lost ALL confidence in NYT management. They seem to feel entitled to manage the news rather than just report it. Pinch fingerprints all over this again. Perhaps he collaborated with Judith Miller???

[BOfever]

"They held off this story for months"

And the story that came out is nothing but hearsay or speculation. If they held out for months it had to be due to lack of evidence, which still holds true.

[jsinclair]

You know, it's really possible that the timing of the story is EXACTLY as they say---because it took that long to get it corroborated and properly written (including legality).

If it had been earlier--McCain may have lost. If it was in October--it would have had a big affect. His campaign has been trying to hush it up for months. They failed.

Maybe truth is a better approach for him now.

This just confirms my impression of his ethics (personal and political)---the "Double Talk Express".

[Oldtimer]

I have to agree with you. All the Timns did was
unite Republicans and independents (who are particularly turned off by sex scandal journalism)
There was a time that I would have been surprised
if the Times ran such a anecdotal scandal
story but not since Judith Miller. The Times is
becoming a less and less respected daily.
I have one question for Bill Keller.
Do you have the woman's stained dress?????

[nunzia]

Here's another dimwit American voter who thinks the scandal part is about SEX.
Grow the hell up.
You people all complain about offshore banking and corporate greed and outsourcing and corporate tax breaks.
Yet, when you hear about a Senator and a Lobbyist, you can't get your thoughts past sex.

[NABNYC]

This would not be a story except for the suggestions that there may have been sex involved. When I first heard it described as a relationship between McCain and some woman, I shrugged my shoulders. But then when I heard she was a lobbyist -- better still, a telecommunications lobbyist -- I perked up: Heidi Fleiss, Mayflower Madam. Now the story gets interesting.

Who do the Democrats have who could be the Ken Starr counterpart, piss away $80 million of the public's money, holding hearings in Congress and put them on TV, all about this issue? Let's see: Roy Cohn? No, he's dead, and he was a republican. Can anyone think of an attorney as slimey as Ken Starr? Yes of course, everyone can come up with at least ten, and those are just the ones they know personally.

Who cares? McCain should just say: So what, what's it to you? Just assume we had sex, enjoy yourselves giggling, then let's move on.

Of course I guess the Democrats feel pretty smug that it's highly unlikely we'll be seeing any sex scandals about Hillary. Safe bet. And about Obama because I don't think Michelle would have let him live if he strayed.

So the question is: who's pushing this story? Is it the right-wing? That is probably the more interesting story. Who's the tattle-tale?

[jsinclair]

OF COURSE it's a story without the adultery angle. The Washington Post reported it this morning without that (perhaps because, unlike the Times, they didn't have enough sources to quote).

it seems pretty clear that McCain DID do favors for this lobbyist. That much is uncontested. He says, "Nothing unusual for Washington."

The problem is, he's been saying for years how "ethical" he is, NOT like typical Washington.

So, yes, I think it's damaging.

When they start talking more about his temperament problems, and his health problems, I think he'll be toast.

But, then who? .....Jeb?

[sandiegoconservative]

Did you read anything but the article? there were a few times when he was in favor of something favorable to their position and over a dozen times when he was not in favor.

[joedirtfromaz]

Everyone can forgive an affair.
This is so much more than that.
It's sex and cash in exchange for legislative favors. That's pretty bad.
The NYT story looks like a Republican smear piece. I'm no McCain fan,
but there should be more evidence to back up such an accusation.

[mrcontinental]

I smell Mitt Romney. This has his fingerprints all over it.

[ohnonotagain]

The real story is his relationship with the lobbyist. Read between the lines people. Pay attention to the laws he is trying to push thru.

[nunzia]

ohnonotagain - THANK YOU!!

[bikerdude]

Too late for Romney to benefit. The real back story is that this is not the first time Mccain has been involved in something like this. Perhaps this is a way to lead into the Keating/s&l story.

[surfcitysteven]

The times did the old coot a favor. All the pissed off "conservatives" who hated him just one week ago will now go running to his defense. I smell a rat.

[shades3]

The Times reinforced the idea that even an old guy with a bad comb-over can get ladies if he has access to power.
Power, as Henry Kissinger said so many years ago, when people wondered at his appeal to women, is an aphrodisiac.
So, old guys everywhere can still rest easy if they are powerful and/or rich.


The question is whether McCain gave her clients preferential treatment, or contracts as a result of his apparent personal relationship with her.