NYT Public Editor Faults McCain Story

New York Times:

BILL KELLER, the executive editor of The Times, said the article about John McCain that appeared in Thursday's paper was about a man nearly felled by scandal who rebuilt himself as a fighter against corruption but is still "careless about appearances, careless about his reputation, and that's a pretty important thing to know about somebody who wants to be president of the United States."

But judging by the explosive reaction to the 3,000-word article, most readers saw it as something else altogether. They saw it as a story about illicit sex. And most were furious at The Times.

Marilyn Monaco of Philadelphia, one of more than 2,400 readers to comment on The Times's Web site, said the newspaper "has sunk below its standards and created a salacious distraction from an otherwise substantive campaign. And for the record, I am an Obama supporter." Terry Bledsoe of Sun Lakes, Ariz., said, "I am most disappointed in The New York Times for engaging in this sort of trash-the-candidate journalism." A minority of readers applauded the article. "Bravo to The Times for integrity and guts," said Rick Gore of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

The uproar was over an assertion in the second paragraph that during McCain's first run for the White House eight years ago, some of his top advisers became "convinced" he was having a "romantic" relationship with a female lobbyist and intervened to protect the candidate from himself. McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, denied they had an affair, and at a press conference after the article was published, McCain denied that anyone ever confronted him about their relationship. He described her as a friend.

The article had repercussions for both McCain and The Times. He may benefit, at least in the short run, from a conservative backlash against the "liberal" New York Times. 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 Iseman had a romance.

Keep reading

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[larry278]

06:46 PM on 02/24/2008

When will the NYT add the title Pubic Editor to the title of the NYT's Public Editor?

[roxnev]

03:24 PM on 02/24/2008

I don't think their was romance, but I think their could of been a little sex. after all Republicans once in a while have man on women sex, it isn't always mam on man sex, so simmer down Republicans, Republicans do have sex.

[KeysDan]

02:43 PM on 02/24/2008

The public editor was more forceful on the McCain story than in his scolding of his bosses on the hiring of Bill Kristol. Maybe, he is becoming more even-handed in his critiques and that is a good thing. However, the thrust of his journalistic review seems to be that the basic truths of the article,hypocrisy and being in bed with lobbyists, were eclipsed by inadequately supported romantic innuendo. Save for a "blue dress" it would be difficult to definitively verify the latter, but, the former should continue to be investigated and reported upon. Criticism of the hot portion of the article should not have a chilling effect on continued coverage of the nut of the story.

[jeersforfears]

03:10 PM on 02/24/2008

The point is that the NYT created an illegitimate salacious aspect to the story to hook the readers. Crap is king, as it's been said, and no entity uses crap more than the NYT.

If there's more about corruption with lobbyists (and there isn't, or it would have been in the article) let it play out.

Meanwhile, the NYT steps in it again, and even their liberal readership has been critical - something that never used to happen

McCain will be harder to attack than you think - you can joke about his colostomy bag all you want - and the MSM risks making a martyr of him.

[ChristianEcon.com]

08:55 AM on 02/24/2008

The Times article just seemed like basic reporting to me; quotes, facts supporting a larger theme.

The only way I can explain all the uproar is how easily the public is misled by the well-oiled and well-funded right-wing media response machine.

Of course that machine is going to try to get in front of the story and make the Times the issue instead of McCain, and of course try to link it to their premise that the NYT is "liberal" and the poor GOP is victimized. That's an element of their operating procedure in every case of news that reflects negatively on the GOP, and has been for a long time.

You'd think by now it'd be more recognizable to more people.

[TimN]

09:24 AM on 02/24/2008

"The Times article just seemed like basic reporting to me; unnamed sources, innuendos supporting a political agenda."


Agreed.

[kaafir]

02:22 PM on 02/24/2008

The "public" were not misled by any well oiled and well funded right wing media.

The reaction to this drive by smear job was almost instantaneous and visceral. Ocourse the NYT is "liberal" or atleast biased towards the Democratic party. They have been endorsing the nominee of the democratic party almost for ever. And Obambi is not the promised one either. Just Google Tony Rezko.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that "John McCain now holds a very modest lead against both potential Democratic challengers as of 24th Feb 2008. In a general election match-up, McCain now leads Barack Obama 46% to 44% and Hillary Clinton 48% to 44%." Add Nader to the mix. Gets quite interesting.

For real change vote Nader 08!

[VivaZapata]

06:53 AM on 02/24/2008

McCain has been duplicitous for his whole political career. All of The New York Times critics in mainstream media and right wing radio know this to be true. His PR face as a champion on reform was only a mask to hide that he's been taking money and junkets during the whole charade. Some of those "contributors" to making life miserable for the average American, by giving to the "amiable" Arizona senator, include the media corporations themselves. It's just business; they'll all say, but it's very bad, even if legal, business. He is a staunch Israeli supporter because that's where the money is. He's anti single payer (oooh socialism) health coverage because he gets money from those interested in keeping America unhealthy. He's a bomb Iran freak because of the money. On and on the corporate slot machine pays out for Senator McCain. There is nothing new here. The Times story was more about this than just some gossip about his sexual proclivities (which also had been gossiped about for decades). When I hear the mainstream media talking heads, it's almost as if they didn't read the article since all they focus upon is the sexual aspect. Whether Russert, Matthews and the rest do that because it's sensational or because their bosses at GE and Time Warner want them to do so doesn't matter: to tell a partial truth is still being dishonest, and they almost always are.

[ProfessorDuh]

05:56 AM on 02/24/2008

Poor widdle McMummy. He's in bed with so many, many lobbyists. How can the New York Times expect him to keep track of who's literally under the covers servicing him at any given moment?

[TheHunt]

03:29 AM on 02/24/2008

who cares whether he screwed some lobbyist bitch? the point is, he's an evil, masochistic, lying, warmonger, hatemonger, homophobic, miserable repuglican who wants everyone who isnt a christian white man to suffer and die in america.

[kroses98]

03:44 AM on 02/24/2008

AMEN!!! They really wouldn't care, except that people are angry with them, and they are worried that they will lose even more money. Did they worry so much when Judith Miller enabled the start of the War In Iraq, that stole the very lives of almost 4,000 of our sons and daughters, and God knows how many Iraqis, and mutilated tens of thousands more, in body and mind, and bankrupted us all? Do they care about that? I think not!!! ALL THEY REALLY CARE ABOUT IS THE "BOTTOM LINE!" BOYCOTT THE NEW YORK TIMES!!! THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE WAITED, & THEY SHOULD NOT APOLOGIZE!!! McCain is a WAR-MONGER!!!

[larry278]

10:06 PM on 02/23/2008

Hoyt Clark has taken Bill Keller to the wood shed & applied the board of education to the seat of Bill Keller's pants. Pooch Sulzburger or Sulzburger may feel it when Hoyt Clark acquaints Pooch with the board of education in the NYT's wood shed.

[jsinclair]

10:39 PM on 02/23/2008

I'm sorrry that the NYT couldn't stand up to right-wing pressure.

They researched the story. They didn't say he had an affair. They said his behavior with this lobbyist was so inappropriately close and seemingly so personally close that they felt it would cause gossip. Someone actually WARNED her to stay away from the Senator.

Is that a story? Yes. There's no question from this story that McCain behaved inappropriately for a married man (especially one in the public eye). It doesn't matter if they had sex or not.

In addition, his proximity to lobbyists is a BIG story. Yes, he did favors for this close female lobbyist. Yes, 26 lobbyists are high level staffers in his campaign.

Yes, he has said he's "different" and "clean" and "against Washington lobbyists influencing politicians".

McCain is a hypocrite and has been trying to get the Times to keep this story under wraps for months. Finally, they STOOD UP (despite his temper and right-wing backlash).

Don't back down. It's a legitimate story. And it WILL have legs. McCain is toast.

[larry278]

10:51 PM on 02/23/2008

All God's children got wings too. Pooch & Bill were wrong in having the NYT print the McCain story. It looks like a clumsy, belated attempt to spike the NYT's endorsment of John McCain as the person most suited to be the GOP's '08 candidate for POTUS.
The McCain story makes the NYT look like a 10th rate, regional daily, published in a 1 paper town & proves that the NYT is no longer one of the USA's newspapers of record.

[TimN]

09:57 AM on 02/24/2008

"Someone actually WARNED her to stay away from the Senator."

Who?

[SubparDude]

07:43 PM on 02/23/2008

:
Does it Matter To Anyone that the story is True?

Unrefuted?

Huh?
:

[andyg]

11:04 PM on 02/23/2008

prove it?

[SubparDude]

12:52 PM on 02/24/2008

:
Keep listening in the next few days about McCain & Lobbyfucks, NOT McCain & women.

For the McCain Females story, consult his First Wife.

:

[Ramirez]

07:38 PM on 02/23/2008

Bill Keller at the Times offers a simple explanation for the flap:
NYT readers are stupid.

From the Daily News:
****

New York Times editor blames readers for dustup over John McCain article
BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Saturday, February 23rd 2008, 4:00 AM

WASHINGTON - The embattled executive editor of the New York Times defended its John McCain story Friday with a novel explanation for the flood of critical e-mails the newspaper received: slow-witted readers.

"Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction," Bill Keller wrote in a Times Web site Q&A forum. Readers posted 2,000 comments and sent in 3,700 questions.

"I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot," Keller added.

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn't get it.

"Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story."

That point, he said, was that McCain, "this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances, also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation."

While some press watchers defended the Times, others said the problem wasn't dense readers.

"I don't want to fault the journalists," said Columbia University journalism Prof. Todd Gitlin. "But the article as it ran was a mess and not the highest point of journalism."

****
Read the whole thing at:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/02/23/2008-02-23_new_york_times_editor_blames_readers_for.html

[IncredulousGeezer]

07:37 PM on 02/23/2008

McCain seems to operate in a vacuum. His temper is legendary, not only with his subordinates but with his Senate colleagues.

This contretemps may be another example of his tin ear. Appearances matter. Whether with lobbyists when the plane rides or private luncheons with a babe are entirely innocent in your eyes, or when you think your colleagues know you're kidding.

Could Putin or other world leaders know this by looking into his eyes & seeing his soul?

[oshpd1]

07:24 PM on 02/23/2008

The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”
This is what the editor said. What was the reason to run the article? To degrade a candidate? To create false ideas in readers minds? This is a perfect example of how the Media and some of the media heads want to distort information to convince readers to turn against someone all to fall in line with the media heads line of thinking. I have cancled my NYT subscritpion. I cannot pay money to an organization that attempts subtle brain washing with inuendo.

[catoutofthebag]

07:18 PM on 02/23/2008

Truth hurts. This could also be seen as shooting the messenger.

[JadedAggie]

07:13 PM on 02/23/2008

The public editor did his job perfectly. That was pretty much spot on analysis about what was right and wrong about the article.