A Study in Scarlet
The New York Times’ Public Editor weighs in on the McCain story. Here’s part of his exchange with Bill Keller, the Executive Editor of The Times:
[I]n the absence of a smoking gun, I asked Keller why he decided to run what he had.
“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”
I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.
He also gives a sample of readers’ reactions:
Marilyn Monaco of Philadelphia, one of more than 2,400 readers to comment on The Times’s Web site, said the newspaper “has sunk below its standards and created a salacious distraction from an otherwise substantive campaign. And for the record, I am an Obama supporter.” Terry Bledsoe of Sun Lakes, Ariz., said, “I am most disappointed in The New York Times for engaging in this sort of trash-the-candidate journalism.” A minority of readers applauded the article. “Bravo to The Times for integrity and guts,” said Rick Gore of Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Well — is it boo or bravo?
“Boo” to The Times (still) and “Bravo” to Clark Hoyt (which is an implicit kudos to The Times for having an ombudsman). Hoyt’s column and conclusion really seems to summarize what is the overwhelming judgment of readers and media professionals–that the Times’ story was seriously flawed. The argument that they could not edit out unsubstantiated gossip just doesn’t hold water. Reporters edit out unsubstantiated gossip all the time. It often turns out to be true. But you can’t report about it. I continue to believe that The Times could have included the reports (on the record) of concerns about McCain’s relationship with Iseman, but without pushing it too hard. A mention lower in the story, and with an immediate rejoinder that there was no evidence of anything romantic between the two, might have flown. I’m not sure. But the salient fact is that The Times made the story about a romantic relationship; protests that they could not ignore it are beside the point. As Hoyt points out, the newspaper is already backing away from the assertions, and will likely continue to do so. They are getting hammered from the rest of the journalism community. I heard on NPR that the Boston Globe–a Times property!–only ran the WaPo folo ABOUT the Times story. This is all good for McCain, bad for the Times, but also bad for journalism.
McCain may or may not have ‘fallen’ for the attractive lobbyist. But who has not heard about ‘honey trap’? Anyone with an good job has been warned when going to Russia. Russia and I would guess the USA have a whole bureau of ‘honey trappers’. The Drug industry is famous for attractive point women.
Lobby firms too. Is The McCain staffers’ warning him in dispute? They know their man. He has the looks of someone who thinks of himself as irrisistable.
Bad journalism? I think not.
Despite all the talk about attractive women, second wives, and all, I thought this story was about ties to lobbyists. I think McCain gets a bump from the piece because people will see the sex end and wave him through. People grew tired enough of the anti-Bill Clinton escapades and that story–a real one–ended up with no legs.
Is McCain a real straight-talker? For the sake of the country, I’d hope somebody in that party had some honor and sense. I don’t plan to vote for him, but it would be reassuring to know he is who he says he is. This story casts some doubts on that score. The sex angle isn’t serious enough from this story alone.
Boo for the Times. I think Clark Hoyt got it exactly right. You don’t bring up the (alleged) affair unless you have more proof.
One wonders: why didn’t the Times simply focus on the lobbying issue, and McCain’s inconsistencies? That would have been a very strong story, and could have been developed even more. For example:
The Times has never needed a public editor more than right now, when it is tempted to do just about anything to broaden its readership. I think one of the problems with the McCain piece is that the implied reader at which it was aimed was someone who would uncritically accept gossip in lieu of news. Beginning with a titillating but unsubstantiated teaser and offering a photo of the attractive lobbyist were tabloid ploys that in the end just distracted well-programmed traditional Times readers from the relevant criticism of Mc Cain’s record buried deep in the story. In succeeding days The Times tried various strategies: defensive comments from Keller and earnest follow-up pieces from Elizabeth Bumiller and Jill Abramson, but they could do little to save the situation.
Good for Clark Hoyt. At least he knew what to do: admit a major gaffe, admonish the editor, serve the public interest.