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?")
Follow Jay Rosen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jayrosen_nyu
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/times-back-making-up-the-news/2008/02/24/1203788142795.html
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.â€
[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.â€
[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.â€]
NYT: “We should distinguish conscientiously between high-level and lower-level executives or officials.â€
[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]
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.
Even the crossword puzzles are weak.
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?
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 Foeâ€, Washington Post (Dec. 31, 2007), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/30/ST2007123002933.html
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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 )