The John McCain-Vicki Iseman story is not the first article the New York Times has held back for political reasons. They have now done this on at least three occasions:
1. The original FISA story on how the Bush administration was not getting warrants for wiretaps inside the United States.
2. The original story in 2004 that showed Osama bin Laden was hiding in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
3. The McCain-Iseman story.
We had James Risen, the writer of the first two stories on our show back in 2005 and he admitted that they held the Bin Laden story until after the 2004 election because the New York Times didn't want to "get caught up in the politics of it." (You can listen to the whole Jim Risen interview here.)
Another way of stating that is that they were afraid of being called the liberal media by Republicans. After decades of being chastised for being liberal, they have become gun-shy. In this McCain story, they also held off until they were about to outed by other news agencies as sitting on the story.
Conservatives are now charging that the New York Times held off on the story until after McCain had wrapped up the nomination, so they could ruin his chances in the general election. First, this is wrong because if they wanted to hurt his chances of getting elected, they would have revealed this fact much closer to the general election. They couldn't have done McCain a bigger favor than by waiting to release the piece until after the primaries and way, way before the general.
Since they endorsed McCain in January despite knowing this story -- and the clear implications of hypocrisy on campaign finance reform, let alone the other implications -- the most likely conspiracy would be that they favor McCain in the election. But I don't think there is a conspiracy.
I think the far simpler answer is the correct one. The McCain campaign threatened and intimidated them as the Bush team has done on countless occasions and they gave in until someone else was about to release the story. The only thing worse than being bullied by Republicans is getting scooped by your competitors.
The story here isn't that the NYT is trying to hurt conservatives, it's the exact opposite -- they're afraid of them. On every occasion that they have had a major story like this, they have held it after being badgered by Republicans. They only print the stories when there are no other options left and the story is about to get printed elsewhere anyway.
In the end, the concerns Jim Risen expressed to us about politicizing these stories are ironically counterproductive. When any paper holds a story because of political pressure, they are politicizing the story. The only way to avoid making this type of political decision, by commission or omission, is to print the story when you have it.
Now the New York Times has gotten itself in the same old pickle they always do -- they are going to be criticized by Republicans when in fact they were trying to be extra fair to Republicans. What they don't get is that the conservatives view them as the enemy; they are never going to be appeased. So, do us all a favor and just print the damn story when you have it.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
They released a story that McCain successfully countered and left most people saying "What the hell was the NY Times talking about".
If the NY Times doesn't have the goods to back up their story - they shouldn't be releasing them.
And, by the way, turns out that they were correct about the potential coruption askpect of the story!
Deep Throat: Follow the money!
If Bush's numbers are at 19% as you reported on your show, why wouldn't the NYT want a 81% market share, even if they were called "liberal".
The power of the media is really the power of framing the discussion, not the breaking of a story. When I try a murder I want to frame the argument "How heinous was the murder he commited." and since I go first, defense counsel is left whining, "you can't prove he was at this heinous horrible murder." So the jury is thinking about whether a heinous murder will be punished, even if it is a whodunit.
Thank you! This is the real media, not some liberal wackos running around trying to give us all free healthcare!
It seems that this is quite a timely story now that McCain's campaign co-chair was just indicted on federal charges of extortion, money laundering and fraud.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/22/rick-renzi-indicted-mcca_n_87974.html
Maybe it's perfect timing. If there's more to the story regarding McCain and the female lobbyist, then isn't it possible they were waiting until McCain was a done deal for the Republican nomination before the Times decided to release this story?
Now the Republicans are circling the wagons around McCain, but it may be too late if this story has any legs or a few more arrows.
McCain would not speak directly to the Times but was notified of this story and referred it to his lawyer. That indicates we have not heard the last of this lobbyist scandal.
It's like Nancy Pelosi playing nice w/Dumbya (Impeachment is off the table-less than 24 hours after the 2006 election), and, guess what, Nancy - he still SHITS on you.
Stop trying to make the Neocon Repigs and so-called Conservatives like you. They will NEVER be your friend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JUST DO YOUR JOB - PRINT THE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the *real* story here.
The masters of accusation, the vast right wing conspiracy, is spinning this article to be an unfair sex expose, something like they would dream up while spending lazy days in the halls of congress.
The Times never says that sex is the issue, but McCain's hypocrisy about lobbyists and special interests should be called to the mat.
I do, however, love to see them squirming in their seats!
We need leaders that we know as much about as possible good and bad, not leaders who are formed by newspaper portals. Candidates being portrayed as perfect, and their flaws hidden do not allow the American People to really elect a leader. We are only allowed to elect someone that has been portrayed to us by the media.
The media has been bending over backwards so far they're Limbaugh dancing--hoping ol' Rush won't find something to whine about in the inch their shoulders are off the floor.
As for the Republicans, either they know it's the most pernicious lie of the post-Vietnam era--it makes the others possible--or they're masochistically begging to be humiliated (and the media, like the sadist in the old joke, say No.).
The owners of the NYT are part of the money based power structure in this country - they were just protecting their interests in looking out for McCain - the next version of Bush/Cheney. It is not a Us vs. Them with the NYT ownership - it is Us is Them, so they are very careful when they print something that might offend someone they play golf with - besides McCain is for everlasting war and war is good for business.
hannity just said he's not going to mention a utube post from a guy who says obama and edwards had an affair. because there was no evidence that obama and edwards are having an affair. no, he doesn't even know if the guy on utube who is saying obama and edwards are having affair actually knows whether edwards and obama actually had an affair. but he isn't going to repeat it.
this is shit he can't say on his TV show but he can repeat and talk about for the next six months without getting called on it.
another example of why we need a Fairness Doctrine ASAP