The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy Against John McCain

The conspiracy theory going around conservative circles goes like this: The New York Times endorsed McCain in the GOP primaries while sitting on the story about his relationship with a D.C. lobbyist. The villainous paper was just setting up the senator so they could later destroy him.

The theory redefines loopy for any number of reasons -- If they wanted to destroy McCain wouldn't they have sprung the story in December? Since when does the New York Times have such influence in the GOP primaries that their imprimatur carries such weight? Why spring the story now and not in, say, October? -- but it also demonstrates an ignorance of how newspapers work.

While few may believe this, there is at most newspapers a separation between the reporters (who write the news stories) and the editorial board (who write the unsigned editorials). When I was at The Boston Globe I cannot recall ever reading the paper's editorials (I cannot, for that matter, remember the last time that I read any paper's unsigned editorials) and being in the D.C. bureau didn't have the faintest idea of who was on the Globe's editorial board. And while I can't say as a certainty I doubt they were being briefed on what I and my colleagues were working on.

The Times' ombudsman -- or anyone else -- would do well to address this issue and put it to rest. Is the paper's editorial board routinely -- or ever -- briefed on pending stories? Unlikely. More likely the ed board made it's endorsement without knowledge that reporters were tracking down these rumors. And even in the unlikely event that they knew about the pending story, since the story was not yet baked to the point where the Times felt they could run it, they would have been out of line to base judgments upon it. But like I said, the whole line of reasoning redefines loopy.

Comments

[MyThought]

I did not have sexual relations with that lobbyist woman...ya, right.

McCain has a history - should check it out before you think he's so holier-than-thou.

The Republican moral sanctimony is so hard to take - with all the corruption and scandals of late - the latest being Trent Lott being under investigation - it's time to wake up and smell the rose-colored-glasses folks.

They are not more moral - seems even loss so, than the Dems.

[runswithscissors]

Funny, when Ann Coulter endorses Hillary because she knows how much that'll enrage the Republican base there's no outcry. Yes, someone's always out to get the poor conservatives, who've been given a free ride by this same media on EVERYTHING from starting an unnecessary war to giving away the people's money, from illegal spying on citizens to contracting the VP's former company to build gulags all over the country. Yes, everyone is out to get the poor conservatives. What a bunch of crybabies

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think he's a good guy, essentially, but bad karma. The whole vietnam POW thing, that speaks to a past of coercion and essentially having been a human political tool. Bad juju.

[Fairfloss]

As my Pops use to say, "yous don't need to spend a plug nickel on the NY Times, just sit back and they'll run the country." (Dad was from Philly) "Some day, some one will have the courage to knock the old gray lady on her kuester," he often said.
Has that day arrived yet? How many times does the New York Times need to be caught expanding on the truth or just plain lying in an attempt to control the vote?
Nasty little rag.

[raptor]

"While few may believe this, there is at most newspapersa [sic] separation between the reporters (who write the news stories) and the editorial board (who write the unsigned editorials)."

I am one of those nonbelievers. Gee, why do so many editorials deal with news stories? I've been reported on several times by a major newspaper. When I challenged the reporter on errors in the stories, he attributed them to changes by his editor. An editor may think a better headline for a story on an execution is "Killer Fries!" (an actual headline by an editor I knew). A good tipoff to editing occurs when a relatively-unfamiliar person ("Stephenson" or "McManus", for examples) is introduced into the story for first time by their surname, indicating some material above was edited out. The headines become more desperate as the day wears on, in an effort to sell more newspapers. The editing practice is even worse in small newpapers. In a town of 15,000 it may be the major, if not only, source of news. I know, it's hard to believe, but I've seen the reader surveys.

[not one of the sheep]

Isn't this an old story that was found to be without merit? Now, it is resurrected and presented as fact. The newspapers as a whole are losing subscribers in droves and going under while remaining clueless as to why. This is a prime example why there is no separation between the main stream and tabloid rags. This is an unexcusable smear tactic no matter who it is aimed at, dem or repub.

[Advocate123]

Your theory doesn't hold water. If they dropped McCain earlier, they get Mitt or Rudy. We know how much the Times loves them.

[Boboday555]

It sounds to me like the New York Times was going to have neo-con feces thrown their way regardless of when they ran this story.
But hey, the good news is the GOP and McCain could always get together and finally sue the New York Times for Libel.
The GOP always seem to be whining about what they see as lie filled liberal bias stories running in the Times but they never seem to grow a pair and take the them to court.
It sounds to me like more "GOP sound and fury signifying nothing!"