A few riddles, questions and observations about the story that everyone--including John McCain--is talking about this morning: For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk in the New York Times...
* Lots of people will be asking why now? but my first question upon reading the story was different: why endorse? The New York Times endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination on Jan. 25, when it was clearly working on this story and had the basic facts in hand. The endorsement does not mention his image for rectitude, which today's story assaults, but still, it's an endorsement, an institutional seal of approval. If the facts in today's article were not enough to make the Times re-think its endorsement, then why were they good enough for the front page of the paper, eight years after the events in question?
* UPDATE: Two people who work for the New York Times wrote to me with the same complaint: why was I raising questions about the editorial page's endorsement of John McCain on Jan. 25 when I know--or should as a J-professor know--that the newsroom and the editorial page operate independently of each other and do not coordinate? My answer: there's one person who would have known about the paper's struggles with McCain and his lawyers over today's story, and who read and approved the paper's endorsements-- or should have. That is Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the publisher. And so to ask, "How does the Times endorse McCain with a story like that looming, if it believes in the story?" is to ask, at a minimum, what Arthur thought he was doing. But it's more than that. Staffers who live the logic of their internal organization and its brilliant divides sometimes fail to see what the institution as a whole is saying. The Times endorsed a man it had reason to believe would face front page scrutiny like we saw today from the news section of the Times. It is not unreasonable to ask why. The two sides don't need to coordinate if both read Drudge.
* Lots of people will be asking: did the Times have the goods, enough facts to even run this story? (National Review's Rich Lowry says no, and many others will be saying the same thing today.) I notice that the Washington Post essentially ran the same story today, minus the innuendo about an affair. It leads with the strongest fact to emerge from the Times account: that former McCain aide John Weaver had met with the women in question to ask her to stay away, a meeting--and an agenda--that Weaver confirmed to the Times and the Post. If there's any "hard" news in these accounts to support the appearance of ethical taint, that is it. But the Post left out the, "Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened..." part, which makes the Times story far more explosive, and more of an event within the 08 campaign. Which makes me wonder why the Times didn't run a G-rated version scrupulously free of tabloid stuff.
* According to the McCain camp, the "why now?" question is answered by the inquiries a reporter for The New Republic has made about infighting at the New York Times over this story. The New Republic says its story, by Gabriel Sherman, will be out later today. Sherman is a former reporter for the New York Observer who has shown he has sources inside the paper during two earlier episodes: the Judy Miller agonistes and James Risen's wiretapping story, where the "why now?" question was extremely important, since it involved the 2004 election. Therefore we will soon know a lot more about the struggles over this story, which must have been intense. (Read it yourself: Sherman's article is now up.)
* On the question of "the goods," when I read the story I expected... more. Any report alleging a damaging affair by a current presidential candidate needs to be air tight and locked down, especially when the events in it date from two election cycles ago. But for this purpose the Times has only anonymous sources; that makes me nervous. While any story like this says to readers, "trust us, we're the New York Times," this one puts the Times reputation more completely on the line because there is virtually nothing else for us to trust than the rectitude of the people running the paper. For, "Convinced the relationship had become romantic..." there is nothing we can check, no one we can ask, no digging we can do. That is why Pat Buchanan on MSNBC this morning was predicting a "war to the death between the New York Times and John McCain." But watch for Clark Hoyt's next ombudsman column. I would not be surprised at all if he comes out with a verdict esssentially saying: you didn't have it.
* For lovers of culture war--and I am not one--there is almost nothing better than a story like this. The cultural right will go with its ultra-simplified story line: the liberal media wants Barack Obama to win and this is how it manifests. In a contest of strength, I think the discomfort over McCain as a conservative and candidate is weaker on the right than the resentment at an institution like the New York Times, and the mobilizing power of "liberal media intervenes in the election on behalf of its guy" is too great to resist.
* Thus, the Politico's report: Asked about the impact that the allegation of adultery would have among social conservative activists, some of whom still aren't entirely sold on McCain, Black said they would see it as "the New York Times spreading rumors and gossip. We're going to war with the New York Times, so they'll probably like it."
* For the New York Times, self-confidence on ethics poses its own risks, as well. From the looks of it, the paper is going to have to fight for its story--and its ethics--in the court of public opinion, but this is not something the Times is ever comfortable doing. It vastly prefers "the story speaks for itself." (Which Bill Keller just said in a statement.) I don't think that will be good enough in this case because the story speaks so thinly for itself, and because the paper has tried--without much success, I would add--to cut down on the use of anonymous sources, recognizing how much they put at risk. (From a 2004 internal report, "Can we otherwise squeeze more anonymous sources out of our pages? Can we make our attributions (even the anonymous ones) less murky? Are there some stories we can afford to skip if they are not attributable to people with names?")
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Murdoch's News Corp, to the rescue of McCain.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/times-back-making-up-the-news/2008/02/24/1203788142795.html
Here is part of the NYT anonymity policy: "Forms of Attribution to Confidential Sources". Is there any doubt that the NYT failed to adhere to its own policy:
http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/sources.html
NYT: "We should avoid automatic references to sources who "insisted on anonymity" or "demanded anonymity"; rote phrases offer the reader no help and make our decisions appear automatic. When possible, though, articles should tersely explain what kind of understanding was actually reached by reporter and source, and should shed light on the reasons and the source's motives."
[This was clearly violated. The NYT said in the very opening paragraph: "A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client"s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself "instructing staff members to block the woman"s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity." The NYT used the very automatic phraseology --"several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity" " that its policy was designed to prevent. Nothing is offered to explain motive. (The text of the article is also inaccurate " nobody said they were "convinced" that there was a romantic link; two unidentified ex-staffers said they had a "concern" about such a link according to the article).
NYT: "When we agree to anonymity, the reporter's duty is to obtain terms that conceal as little as possible of what the reader needs to gauge reliability."
[The NYT told us nothing about the backgrounds of the ex-staffers, except that they were "disillusioned." Why were they disillusioned? Were they denied promotions, was their advice rejected, were they fired for cause, were they working for a rival campaign, were they reliable sources in the past? We"ll never know. The NYT concealed as much as possible about these ex-staffers and prevented any assessment of "reliability."]
NYT: "We should distinguish conscientiously between high-level and lower-level executives or officials."
[The NYT did not disclose whether the ex-staffers were high or low level, part of an inner circle of select advisers, or interns].
NYT: "Readers value signs of candor: "The report was provided by a Senate staff member working to defeat the bill."
[We know nothing about the motives of the unidentified ex-staffers; no candor at all]
Thank you for a wonderful analysis. Your points are all right on and I find I am questioning this story and it's context even more. My only specific question is what is with the daughter thing? Every daughter either loves or hates their father without question; what is the political value in trumping out a person that is going to say nothing but what is in their hearts for the family member they love (or hate in some cases)? I recall dick cheney's daughter in a similar position not that long ago and guess what she had to say about her father? It most certainly wasn't that he is a warmonger. It was the predictable warm fuzzy you would expect from an adoring daughter and close family member (and he was speaking out against her rights at the time). No one should even be interested in what probably the single most biased person (short of his spouse) could have to say about this.
I am an ARDENT Democrat. At first I thought John McCain's response was weak. This story now is beginning to remind me of the Dan Rather story, big on splash with spurious, enigmatic possibly problematic evidence. The biggest question for the Times regarding its explosive story on John McCain's possible romantic link to the telecommunications lobbyist surrounds the evidence. This is not just another article it is about the major Republican contender for the presidency and a contender who has staked his reputation on his ethical stances. NYT at first I thought would never write an article like that without having near 100% proof and accuracy with which it could back up what it states.
However, now I think substance is missing from the NYT article. My question is DOES IT HAVE THE EVIDENCE I.E. MORE EVIDENCE than it has given in its article to support what it writes? This reader must be absolutely assured of the article's veracity on a huge issue such as this and if so this reader would like to know what it is. So far its mere hearsay without much support. Who has said what to whom and what hard evidence does the NYT have to back up the allegations? It's that simple. Where's the beef for such an important story!
News organizations I do not CARE who they are MUST MUST MUST care second about the scoop and FIRST about the accuracy of it. Lives can be destroyed with lousy evidence. All you have to do is say it and even if it is based on flimsy evidence the charge is out there. Where is the NYT morality? It MUST produce the evidence or make clearer whose statements this story is based upon.
The "New York Times" has less authenticity than a suburban weekly. A parochial yet apparently useful dispenser of the party (of wealth) line. It has no pretense of persuasion of anything beyond what it's political/financial backers see fit. Only people who care what's in the "Times" care what's in the "Times". And that is some severe insulation.
Even the crossword puzzles are weak.
The New York Times, like the Clintons seems to have a permanent sheen of liberalism that just makes conservative's skin crawl for no apparent reason; much like the reaction you get when you mention the Post or the Standard to some liberals. Like it or not, this paper has been the paper of record for a long time and is not going to be easily dismissed even in it's obvious decline.
Times is hurting...it's circulation is down and it is filled with fluff "styles" sections and the like. The McCain story makes them look pathetic. Not exactly the Pentagon Papers isi it?
Would would you cheer for readership of a newspaper to deline? You prefer people read cartoons?
Which suburban weekly? With so little authenticity you think many of the stories it reports on are false entirely or just in certain factual content? Is not the Republican party the party of wealth?
You know, if someone picked up the Times and read it daily for a year that person would be one of the best informed people among us. The Times is rich in factual content and background. I often wonder way some people invest so much energy in hating the Times. What facts does the newspaper convey that are false or is the angle of many of their stories what you disagree with? Where do you recommend going as a better source for international news then the Times?
That is an easy question. There are many. For example, The Guardian and the Economist for Europe and the Hindustan Times for Asia.
The Economist is a magazine and a fine one. Otherwise, you make my point. A person would have to search the world to find a paper on an equal footing with the Times. Not many people wake up to find the Hindustan Times on their doorstep in the morning. Those papers you mention I am sure are great. A daily reader of the Times would be a very informed person.
the spin that the gop pundits and the majority of the msm showa just how out of touch with the average american they are. just because 7 years of bush has cost them i q points they think that it has done the same to the american voter.bush's only legacy is the achievement of the lowest approval rating ever now that's something to be proud of.
Jay Rosen,
Sorry but you missed the main importance of the N.Y. Times article. It is NOT about the possible romantic relationship; it is NOT about the timing of the artcle. It is about John McCain's links with lobbyists, what funds and special favors (like flights on their jets) he gets from them, and what they expect in return from him. Note that he has a long and sordid history of this dating back to his indictment in the Keating Five Scandal and being admonished by the Senate Ethics Committee for it.
Please follow the money trail. A recent excellent article in the Washington Post that did that:
Jeffrey H. Bimbaum and John Solomon, "McCain"s Unlikely ties to K Street; 32 Lobbyists Aiding Industry"s Longtime Foe", Washington Post (Dec. 31, 2007), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/30/ST2007123002933.html
They wouldn't hurt their warfare candidate while he still had a viable opponent. Same as they did with a number of stories on Bush before the 2004 election.
It's safe to let the story break now that he's basically locked down the nomination, and the general race is half a year off.
This is a bit conspiratorial in nature but I have to say I had the same thought and there is certainly something here; why didn't we ever get to hear about bush's drunk-driving arrests that were factual months before the general election, but we get to hear about mccain's possible, potential affairs from nearly a decade ago during that very same moment in the campaign? I realize the comparison is apples and oranges in some respects, but the Times admitted that they held the bush story even though they had sufficient factual evidence yet they run this one without?
Conspiracy or not McCain isn't new to this MO, as this 1999 article demonstrates. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/drugs/
Oh and for another take on St McCain, you might enjoy this article from that commie rag, The National Revue http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml Of course they were against him before they were for him.
I don't give two hoots who these old coots are boinking as long as it isn't me. This was a sloppy article which has already served its purpose: make the story about the times and not McCains shady past, in much the same way Rather's story became a dissertation on Kerneling and not Mission Accomplished Mc Flightsuit's AWOL stint in Alabama.
Chalk me down in the column of people who thinks the Times reputation is nothing but Kabuki, for a nation of mindless sheep ,who just love getting sheared. How many times did we hear from the warmongers, "you see Judy Miller says there are WMD, then there must be because she works for the "liberal" NYT.
The Weekly Standard has done nothing but loose money since its inception and would shutter its doors tomorrow, if Murdoch didn't care about the chump change, he can throw down that rat hole.
So what does the Times do. Hires two of its "stars" Brooks and Kristol ,presumably to increase circulation by appealing to people who will never, ever, give any credence to anything it prints, unless it is beating the drums of war which, they dutifully have done since the very beginning.
BTW. All this angst about unnamed sources. In the case of Judy Miller, I guess this is another example of being for them, before we are against them?
Maybe, just maybe, the NYT believed that McCain was the best the Repubs had to offer even with the scandal.
Looks like a lot of "Kill the messenger" logic going on here. Well, fellow Republicans, there is still time, before you vote, to reflect upon and compare the persons and the policies of McCain and Ron Paul.
Here's a different kind of response to the trashing of the NY Times article; I'm copying what I sent Bill Keller:
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:39:17 -0800 (PST)
From: ar5
To: "Rick Davis, McCain Campaign"
Cc: kevin@laobserved.com
Subject: Re: Here We Go
"The Internet's First Digital Daily"
-=- THE AMERICAN REPORTER -=-
February 21, 2008
Your characterization of the NY Times and its story is in itself "disgusting." I have been contributing to John McCain, but your response to the Times, questioning its character and integrity after they endorsed
you, is exactly what it took to alienate me. I met John and raised money for him in California, and even changed my registration to support him in the 2000 primary. I am terribly disappointed that you stooped to this gutter
language to describe the greatest newspaper in the world. As all media must, it has its flaws, but "hit-and-run smears" are not among them and you damned well know it. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.
Best,
Joe
Joe Shea
Editor-in-Chief
www.american-reporter.com
Founded April 10, 1995
* 4119 61st Ave. Ter. W., Unit 305C, Bradenton, FL 34210-4055 *
Skype: joeshea + Tel: 941-753-1136 + editor@american-reporter.com
(To the Editor of Salon)
Joan, we're carrying a reference to a joke in very poor taste that David Korn wrote about (http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html), noting as he did that the NYT, LAT and Washington Post "protected" McCain because
he was one of their favorites. I wonder what he would say about today's coverage of McCain?
Best,
Joe Shea
Editor-in-Chief
The American Reporter
www.american-reporter.com
This story will have no legs because it doesn't that old Washingtion saw: Never be caught with a live boy or a dead girl.
The reason the NYTIMES has to fight for their credibility is because the media has taken the "shoot the messenger" ball thrown out by the Refucklicans. Every story is about why the Big Bad New York Times would do this poor iddy widdy John McCain. Very little about the content of the story, or that McCain frankly admitted to flying on planes paid for by lobbyists, after first denying it. Or filling us in on the Keating 5. I think a lot of new voters would like to know what's up with that. If they autopsied McCain as much as they did Kerry in 2004, then it would be responsible journalism. As it is, the media is playing fetch and rollover for the GOP.
GuyFawkes,
Sorry, but the New York Times deserves to be questioned about this story. Why didn't they release the story in November-December when the Republican nomination was up for grabs? Why endorse McCain, and then do a hit piece after he gets the nomination? This really looks like the New York Times is manipulating the timing of news to change the outcome of elections.
I'm sure if you went back and looked at the Democrats and stories the New York Times ran, they might have manipulated those stories as well to try and get a certain outcome.
I believe the McCain people asked them to hold the story up.
If you are worried about the timing of news meant to change the outcome of elections, did you complain when Bush was constantly raising the threat alert before his election or timed news releases of terrorists each time a new scandal broke in the White House.
GuyFawkes - well said. Thanks.
Where there is smoke there is fire. We have not heard the end of this story.
i think it is clear that the obama loving journalists at the ny times planted this story...were probably paid by the obama camp to do so.....yes the editorial page endorsed clinton, but the journalists at the times throughout this election cycle are EXTREMELY pro-obama
The New York Times has an editor and many VERY respected journalists. Stories aren't just 'planted' - especially on the front page.
Let's see if we can really dwelve deeper into this.
Is it logical to think that the powers that be in and around the NYTimes would prefer to have HClinton or McCain elected more than Obama? (hint see who they endored and how their views match up in the Middle East).
What was McCains biggest issue he has been facing? I would posit the rallying of the right wing pundits to support him.
Prediction: the biggest effect the NYTimes article will have is as a rallying call for the right wing to Rush into support of McCain.
This explains the timing and (lacking)substance of the article.
Remember the NYTimes hasn't exactly been the champion of progressiveness for some time now. (i.e. JMiller, Iraq/WMD, Wiretapping, Kristol )
Or it could be that the New Republic was going to run with the article next week.
Your first question, along with your hurried explanation of your first question in edit, are both flawed. Among good newspapers (like the NYT), there is a firewall between those who make the news decisions and those who decide the editorial positions of the paper. It's absurd to suggest that Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. would be aware of a developing story such as this was prior to the editorial page endorsing John McCain, to which we don't even know the process behind that endorsement decision either. Sulzberger has people, like Bill Keller, to deal with news issues. So that's that.
Anyone who has any kind of understanding of newsrooms knows the following after reading the story which appeared in the paper of record today:
1) That story went thru the legal equivalent of a Cuisinart, and was heavily edited to protect the paper.
2) The four reporters who attached their names to this story are all professionals, and there were/are no scurrilous motives with regard to timing. Another absurdity is to suggest that the NYT was scared or pushed by The New Republic into rushing to print.
3) The NYT knows a lot more than they reported.
Whether or not other news organizations, or the NYT itself, publishes a follow up will be the thing to watch. Tho, what was quite interesting was the parallel story which ran in the WaPo which basically had the exact same facts minus the allegations of a sexual relationship. One has to wonder if the NYT had left the sex out, would we even be having this kind of conversation? Or, would we be talking about another dirty Republican on Capitol Hill who peddled access to a lobbyist?
I, for one, accept the story in the NYT, and it's disappointing to read/watch/listen to all the knee jerk reactions to shoot the messenger, especially when she's the gray lady.
Your understanding seems an ideal.
I would suggest there is a trail of nuance that can be charted as:
owner/publisher > editor > reportage
At times one of the lesser may influence the elements above him/her. Normally it's going to be top down. Following the money works just as well in investigating journalism as in investigative journalism.
You make some very valid points. I expect, the Times article is the tip of the iceberg and it remains to be seen if the pubic ever gets to see the rest of it.
In the Times defense, the Oregonian endorsed Bob PAckwood while sitting on the story of his sexual harassment problems....and they had several on-the-record sources.
I agree the sex angle is unnecessary and undercuts the real story which is the poor judgment and ethcial questions raised by this actions on behalf of lobbyists.
I do, however, want to contrast the response to this story to the response to the stories alleging that John Kerry had an affair. Here the leading lights of the left are highly critical of the story and challenge it as much as the right. Then, the right was bounding with joy and pushed that story long after it was debunked. While that doesn't tell you much about this story, it does tell you a lot about the two parties.
McCain lied twice in his press conference.
1. McCain said that his former aide Weaver didn't tell him anything about this story. Weaver has said since the story that he told McCain everything about the story.
2. McCain said that the FEC considered his letter to be normal and the FEC chairman of the time said the letter was highly improper and surprising.
But the bigger story is the one involving lobbyists paying off politicians who think (I imagine) that they are doing nothing wrong and not favoring the lobbyists. Someone did a study with doctors and the gifts given them by the drug reps. The physicians thought they made independent drug choices for their patients, but this was found in the study to be false. The gifts, meals, conferences, etc. did have an influence on the drugs recommended.
The same holds true for college professors and book reps. Physicians and professors consider themselves (as does the public) as trustworthy. Now think about McCain's contributions, free jet rides, etc.
What I find interesting is the woman's comments made behind closed doors to clients. The question is was she simply bragging to make herself look good or did she have influence in McCain's office. Obviously, McCain's political advisers thought she might or at the very least would be perceived to have such clout.
Posted February 21, 2008 | 10:40 AM (EST)