Bad “Times”?
My own reaction to the New York Times story on John McCain and allegations of ethics problems and intimations of playing footsie with a lady lobbyist (I feel free to use tabloid language here as that’s what the story is, at heart) was decidedly negative. For one thing, they tried to mask a straightforward tabloid front about a senator’s possible extramarital romance as a serious investigation about ethics and lobbying–McCain’s bread-and-butter, and something that, if proved, could derail his not-so-Straight Talk Express. But they got nuthin’ solid on the supposed flying sugar shacks (corporate jets). Second, the unproved and largely irrelevant (McCain is twice-married and never set himself up as Mr. Family Values, I believe) romance angle obscured the very relevant and very troubling allegations about his “prudential judgments,” as we might say, on conflicts of interest.
What are your thoughts?
Here is Howard Kutz’s first take at the WaPo.
UPDATE: Straight from The New Republic, a dissection of the story behind the story (subscription needed, but this gives a sense of the drama):
TNR.com has just posted an article tracking the behind-the-scenes drama at the ‘New York Times’ over the paper’s controversial story about John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn’t. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable.
Read the full text here: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8b7675e4-36de-43f5-afdd-2a2cd2b96a24
John McCain is also on the magazine’s cover this week, in an article by TRB columnist Jonathan Chait that assesses the cold calculations of the Straight Talker.
Read the full text here: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6f4b1ece-5c7e-4a41-9a64-279c54510f69
First, the ‘just friends’ defense is so old it’s a laugh for those in the counselling business. It was his aides that sought the intervention; it is not a ‘vast left/right conspiracy’; legislative favors for sex is an unlawful offence. Monica was just sex. McCain will be more closely examined.
The story is raising a number of eyebrows–among the media itself. Even such liberal websites as Slate.org argue that the story was “unfit to print” while The New Republic (which itself seems to believe there mighjt be some truth to the story) nonetheless concedes that some in the media think the story was not ready to be published and concludes that it “may have provided the Times’ critics with a few caveats too many.”
As a journalist (and in the interest of full disclosure, a McCain supporter), I see it as another in the sad line of sorry reporting that includes 60 Minutes and the Bush National Guard story, ABC (I think) and the faked car gas tank explosions, the New Republic’s own experience with Stephen Glass’s made-up stories, etc., etc., etc.
Make that Slate.com: http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/
I don’t see how this story about influence peddling and McCain could possibly hurt him. He’s never been accused of this kind of thing before.
Oh wait.
Never mind.
Whether or not there is any meat to the story (and honestly, reading it this morning, it read like a smear piece from a Chicago aldermanic race) I believe it will damage McCain. The conventional wisdom seems to be that, if he can’t generate passion for his candidacy among Evangelicals, he’s toast in the fall. Being portrayed as a philanderer probably won’t help him get the Christian Right to the polls.
In the interest of fairness, I’ll say I’m not a McCain supporter, especially since he’s trumpeting he’s supporting the “sound principles” of the Republicans who’ve gotten us into this war/economic/partisan mess we’re in. Then in today’s paper, he is reported to have urged GWB to veto legislation banning torture like waterboarding.
So I wonder about credibility.
I disagree that it’s a smear article, though it may have been controversial. Maybe I should say articles, as the Washington Post piece in our local daily today was quite extensive.
I think the issue was xlearly ethical/conflict of interest and hence judgement based.
I know there’ll be b..ing and m..ing about the “liberal media.” etc. but what did McCain’s good friend John Weaver have to gain in this? And the varied sources (apparently “nailed down”) who wished to remain anonymous?
Everyone knows John McCain was a war hero. He is surely a patriot. It does not follow his judgement is always the best, as he himself would admit.
But this one will be partisaned to death by talking heads, not because of the truth of what happebned but because of the stakes involved.
Jim-
In the Evangelical community, (1) being an actual philanderer and (2) being a GOP politician who is called a philanderer by the New York Times during an election year are two very different things. Being a movement Conservative myself, I think this story will be very beneficial to Senator McCain in healing divisions with Evangelicals and the more populist Conservatives who command influence on talk radio, etc.
I think the story holds together. That Sen. McCain’s staffers had to intervene to separate him from a lobbyist is news. As a result of Bill Keller ‘s understandable caution, the story is told awkwardly, with a detour through the Keating 5 scandal. But it is told.
I don’t recall a similar outcry when The Times wrote in 2005 about a relationship between Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and a lobbyist. Menendez was single, by the way. The Times articles referred to a “widespread belief” among politicians and Menendez staffers that Menendez had a romantic relationship with the lobbyist. As one might expect, Republicans made ample use of that coverage in a nasty but unsuccessful race to unseat Menendez. Not that it matters, but the Republican campaign’s spokeswoman is now McCain’s spokeswoman.
Paul-
Perhaps there was not an outcry because Senator Menendez (at the time he was Rep. Menendez) was not up for re-election in 2005. The LiCausi story was written on July 17, 2005 and the Representative was not up for re-election until November 2006. As you know, he was subsequently appointed to the U.S. Senate on December 11, 2005. Another possible explination for the muted outcry to the LiCausi story was perhaps because it strangely never made it to page 1. It was in the New York Region section.
On a side-note, I think using Hudson County New Jersey is probably not a good standard to use to judge the relative merits of stories regarding political corruption, or New Jersey as a whole for that matter. I think Kenya may present a better example of goog governance these days.
MAT,
What about McCain’s first marriage and divorce? It wasn’t pretty. As with Ronald Reagan’s first marriage and divorce, or Bob Dole’s first marriage and divorce, doesn’t it seem that the people who are supposed to care about these things just basically pretend they didn’t happen if it interferes with their politics?
David-
I would add Fred Thompson to that list as well, who was generally considered the “true” Conservative in the GOP field (and who I was supporting). You are totally correct re: Social Conservatives (which is really the voting “bloc” we are talking about here, not just Evangelical Protestants) and divorce – they have basically given up on divorce as a litmus test for their politicians, let alone on the legislative agenda.
What can we say about Limbaugh now praising McCain? In those circles it is an insult to be endorsed by the NY Times, which McCain was. In this way it helps McCain. So now the McCain camp is happy that the Times is now the story. Time will tell if the story has legs.
Paul, funny you should mention the Menendez-Licausi story, because that galled me when I read it then, and it came to mind yesterday. But it was Hudson County politics, which is perhaps the East Cost equivlaent of an alderman’s race in Chicago. I thought that was a terrible story–no point, no proof. I see the McCain story in a similar way. Actually, there are two stories there–one, McCain’s questionable judgement and actions for lobbyists. The other, whether he had an affair. Now sleeping with a lobbyist is newsworthy. But there is no evidence that he did so. (See also David Brooks column–for what it’s worth–today on Weaver.) So it becomes a Page Six item dressed up in Times agate. I see the wagons circling around McCain. They will uncircle if more evidence comes to light–which it may. But it will still be tainted by the way it was done, tossing out innuendo and seeing what sticks. Think also of Whitewater, which the Times pressed, and which led to so many terrible outcomes, and which was a lot of words about nothing.
Here just to keep things interesting (and balanced) is Jack Schafer of Slate on why the Times’ story is credible:
http://www.slate.com/id/2184893/
I think Schafer’s piece is pretty much right on–but again he’s talking about the ethics takedown (very well done) and not the romance angle. Saying he’d want to know if McCain was buddy buddy with a male lobbyist is not the same thing; suggesting that McCain had sex with that male lobbyist, but with no supporting evidence or even an accusation (remember, no one in the Times story even accuses McCain of infidelity) would be closer to the mark of what the Times wrote. Oddly, Schaefer concludes by calling the Times story “imperfect,” though he never really says why.
Newsweek has just chimed in with an apparent contradiction in the McCain defense – a sworn statement by McCain himself.
More spin will proceed and the evil empire of the liberal press will continue to be attacked by the likes of such objective heroes as Rush.
I again think the brunt of the article about “judgement” by McCain is true; how much to make of it, past the spin, i leave to each good voter.
The Washington Post weighs in on McCain’s “lobbying” connection and what looks like his “lobbying” problem:
The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html
In case you missed it, the Times editors respond to reader queries on the McCain story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/business/media/21askthenewsroom.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Jill Abramson argues, persuasively, I think, that
Again I have to ask what id the anonymous top advosirs have to gain by telling this to the Times?
Getting Rush to change sides???
I don’t like stories of this kind any more than David does. When I was City Hall reporter and later an editor at Newsday, this is the type of story I was always content to be second on – as happened more than once in coverage of Rudy Giuliani. I can’t say that everyone I worked with agreed with my lack of interest.
But I do think that these four excellent reporters and their highly accomplished editor, Dean Baquet, had the story. I don’t think it mattered in the slightest to them if the politician they wrote about was a Republican or a Democrat. If it were about a Democrat, you can be sure the Republicans would be declaring the story fair game rather than denouncing it.