by Frank James
The New York Time's story on Sen. John McCain and the lobbyist, hasn't only pitted conservatives against the New York Times; it also has had journalists in newsrooms, on university campuses and in non-profits devoted to journalism debating the story's merits and the Times's handling of it as well.
Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post media critic, captures the arguments on either side in a piece that went up on the Post's website this afternoon.
Media analysts are divided over the bombshell piece, which relied heavily on unnamed sources. If the Times couldn't make the case that McCain and Iseman had an intimate relationship -- and both have denied it -- was it fair to raise the issue? If a crucial allegation was that McCain aides, in 1999 and 2000, told the senator they were worried that the relationship appeared inappropriate and warned Iseman to stay away from their boss, is that worthy of front-page display? If the relevance rests on McCain having written letters to federal regulators nearly a decade ago that would have benefited Iseman's telecommunications clients, is that less newsworthy because it was reported at the time?
"This is a story that rests on the suspicions, unproven, of unnamed sources," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism. "That creates a problem for the New York Times. We're not in an age of trust-me journalism. . . . What you have is a story that some staffers were worried about something. Their worries could well be unfounded, and we don't know that."
But Alex Jones, who runs Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics & Public Policy, called the story "absolutely appropriate. When you run for president, you should have your record scrutinized closely in every respect." Jones, a former Times reporter, said the paper demonstrated that McCain and Iseman had "a very close relationship. . . . The only thing that seems to be in dispute is whether it was a romantic relationship, and that, frankly, is the least important part of it."
At another point he has two other journalists expressing antipodal views:
Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum objects to "the transparent thinness of the reporting. If the Times has evidence that McCain had an affair, they should come out with it. If they have evidence that he showed improper favoritism toward a lobbyist, they should come out with that, too. The fact that they do neither -- most of the article rehashes old stories -- must mean they don't have anything at all; perhaps they are hoping the blogosphere will produce it. The only 'evidence' comes from two anonymous aides who claim they told Iseman to buzz off and stop distracting their boss -- behavior which strikes me as quite normal and rather admirable. Sounds like they were doing their job.
"Thanks to lack of evidence, the article reads not like an exposé but like an elaborate and extended piece of insinuation. Surely this must (sic) will damage the New York Times more than John McCain: Who will believe their reporting on him now?"
Slate's Jack Shafer says the Times piece, while flawed, makes a contribution:
"The story portrays McCain as way too close to lobbyist Iseman and cites unnamed advisers who believe that the relationship was 'romantic,' although McCain and Iseman deny that specific allegation. The piece fails for [some] critics because the newspaper does not produce sheets from McCain and Iseman's enseamed bed to prove their intimacy . . .
"Where there's smoke, there's sometimes fire. That the imperfect Times article doesn't expose a raging blaze isn't sufficient cause for condemning it. The evidence the paper provides more than adequately establishes that McCain remains a better preacher about ethics, standards, appearances, and special interest conflicts than he is a practitioner, something voters should consider before punching the ballot for him."
If nothing else the disagreement within journalism puts the lie to the mainstream media monolith painted by critics on the right and left of the political spectrum. The reality is that journalists in the MSM are anything but single-minded.
There are journalists who are just as alarmed as anyone in the McCain campaign, though not for all the same reasons, that the New York Times went with the story. Then there others who believe running the story was justified.
It has nothing to do with whether said journalists are liberal or conservative in their political tendencies. It's more about ideas of journalistic ethics, including notions of fairness and the right of the people to know important information about their government officials.
How particular journalists balance those elements dictates where they come down on the Times story.
I happen to be in the camp that believes it's unfair journalistically for a media organization to plant the thought in readers' heads that a married man may have had a romantic relationship with a woman based on the suspicions of unnnamed sources.
I would even have problems if the sources were named? What if those sources are wrong? How do you undo the damage? How do you unring the bell?
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The story is all about John McCain/Bush's continued love affair of doing "favors" for lobbyists for cash in return, you would have thought that he would have learned his lesson after getting caught red handed in the Keating scandel...I guess not.
This isn't going to go away, it's a consistent pattern of behavior for him.
About a week or so ago Huckabee was only down 5% to John McCain/Bush in Texas, the outcome of that match up is going to be almost as exciting as the one between Barack and Hillary.
McCain's continued running towards the far rightwing lunitic fringe of the Republic Party is going to destroy him in the end.
Posted by: John E | February 22, 2008 4:15 PM
"QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC. FKA U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
PETITIONER
VS.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
RESPONDENT.
EVERY OTHER TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY ON THE PLANET. MUST I NAME NAMES.
THEIR EMPLOYEES WERE OUSTED. THEIR STOCKHOLDERS WERE DEFAMED.
THEIR "PORTALS" WERE ATTACKED ESSENTIAL TO MEANINGFUL COMPETITION.
BUT OF COURSE, QWEST CAN'T SUPPORT ANY INJURY OR INJURIES BECAUSE JOURNALIST ARE SPLIT!
"THE STAKES ARE HIGH"
NO IMMUNITY, NO PROTECTION FROM LIABILITY OR ACCOUNTABILITY.
GO FANNIE!
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 22, 2008 4:58 PM
I don't believe John and Cindy McCain's version of the events regarding his relationship with Ms. Iseman.
The possibility of a covert, romantic-as opposed to sexual- relationship between McCain and Iseman is high.
As a covert and illicit relationship- it is by definition undocumented and unverifiable.
Everyone Ms. Iseman, Senator McCain, Cindy McCain have every incentive to lie and none to be truthful.
The naivete and liberal bashing of the GOP is again rearing its ugly head and threatens to put another incompetent into the White House.
Posted by: robert chapman | February 22, 2008 5:00 PM
Funny how this NY Times created story has been ALL over the media. Course, as Alex Jones says "when running for president, you should have your record scrutinized closely in every respect." Funny, is that why the media largely ignored and covered the Juanita Broadderick rape allegations against President Clinton?
Or why has the Joke-une had more Swamp items on John McCain in just the last two days than it has in the previous 2-years combined (very slight exaggeration), but certainly more Swamp items on this McCain "story" than it has had of Barack Obama and indicted near-felon Tony Rezko.
Chicago Tribune = Worse than Soviet-era Toilet Paper.
Posted by: John D | February 22, 2008 7:10 PM
Here's your scapegoats, Dyslin:
http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/Archive.asp?Vol=content&Num=1
http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/Archive.asp?Vol=content&Num=0
Posted by: dt | February 22, 2008 9:13 PM
What about the Keating five?
Posted by: Martin Gorski | February 22, 2008 9:53 PM
"Funny how this NY Times created story has been ALL over the media."
Funny how the media and the wingnuts created 'Whitewater' out of nothing. For years and years, plus millions of dollars we had the NY Times leading the charge.
Pardon me for enjoying a big glass of STFU to you wingnuts. We didn't have the internet back then to push back. Now we do.
Jump in, the schadenfreude is fine!
Posted by: weinerdog43 | February 22, 2008 10:00 PM
All responsible media outlets have come out against the story. The only thing this story will have accomplished is that when the NYT lays off more newsroom personnel next year there'll be more cheers than boos.
Robert Chapman and the rest are trying to make gold out of sand. The supposed "relationship" is nothing more than appearing in public a few times together. That's all they've got. By that standard Tim Russert and John McCain have been having a "relationship" since 2000.
That's not "liberal bashing," either, it's the truth. The NYT went to print with a poorly sourced story. Now they're being called on it not just by McCain but by responsible journalists, too. Even Bill Keller wanted to keep the story from seeing the light of day. McCain and Iseman both deny it. They risked an awful lot to print rumor and innuendo as news and now they're being punished for it. Poor babies.
Posted by: Jeff | February 22, 2008 10:23 PM
Of course it was a legitimate story. Those who are complaining didn't read the actual story.
The story doesn't say or suggest that McCain had an affair with Vicki Iseman. The story reports that McCain staffers thought he was having an affair.
That's a HUGE difference.
The story quotes anonymous sources, but what story of significance doesn't? Most of the stories - pro and con - about the Iraq war quoted "sources to close to the story that they didn't want their bosses to know who they were."
The real problem with the story is that McCain has not publicly defended his "friend's" honor. He should be complaining that not only was his reputation tarnished, so was hers.
He should be saying, "Ms. Iseman is an honorable person. She's a young lady that I worked with who did nothing wrong."
Instead, like most politicians, he's just trying to cover his butt.
Furthermore, if McCain's staffers denied her access to a public official because of her sex, they likely violated her civil rights.
McCain and others should be complaining about that.
If McCain's staffers did, indeed, deny her access based on her sex and innuendo, this is a major problem. It means that the only people who can gain access are men - and ugly ones at that.
McCain's unwillingness to address this aspect of the story makes me wonder how willing he will be to protect our civil rights if he were to become president.
McCain's memory, too, appears to be fading. You'd think he would have realized if his "friend" suddenly stopped showing up; and then showed up again after his 2000 defeat. Didn't he wonder WHY that happened?
And last but certainly not least, what woman wouldn't give McCain's staffers a piece of her mind if what they said was WAY OUT OF LINE?
What woman wouldn't raise hell if she was accused of having an affair with a married man and it wasn't true.
Instead, we are left with an image of a strong-willed lobbyist just being kept away from a U.S. senator and not complaining about this sudden lack of access to her "friend."
Hmmmm....
Good story with a lot of details still to be filled.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | February 23, 2008 9:16 AM
The old Gray Lady the Times is laying off 100 staff members as this nonsensical story went to press.I said from the start the NY Times is building up McCain to tear him down for Dickie Durbin's magical Obama who will raise our taxes to the tune of $3,026 a piece according to Freedom Watch.Girls if your fainting at this cultists rally get ready for change that's all you'll have left when this socialist is elected. Hope NO, Despair Oh yea babe! Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | February 23, 2008 10:02 AM
The NYT fictional piece does have some redeeming value: It will be used for decades in college classes as a bad example of how not to run a newspaper; of the folly in not demanding identified sources against the express announced directives of the paper itself, and of how a once great newspaper committed gradual suicide by losing its way. Thankfully, the Tribune has maintained its integrity in such reporting, even though it reprinted this disgusting chapter in modern communication.l
Posted by: Stanford | February 23, 2008 10:14 AM
I noticed what Bud McF above says - if there was no "romantic" content to the meetings then it was insultingly sexist, if not illegal, for staff members to approach Iseman this way. More importantly, her willingness to back off indicates her lobbyist manipulative cunning - she was just waiting for a more opportune time to earn points with McCain for her clients.
Posted by: P Zapata | February 23, 2008 1:20 PM
The McCain campaign has now raised at least $1.5 million thanks to a mailer condemning the unsourced attack piece from the New York Times. The final haul will probably be much more. Thanks, NYT.
Posted by: Jeff | February 23, 2008 3:49 PM
Jerry White,
Your bill for Iraq $40,000. Pay up now (in Euro's, preferably).
Posted by: dt | February 23, 2008 3:55 PM
"The NYT fictional piece does have some redeeming value: It will be used for decades in college
classes."
Posted by: Stanford
And if they still read in colleges and if anyone bothers to read THE ARTICLE and not just the BACKLASH they will quickly conclude that most people did not READ in our time but rather went on partisanship and emotion.
Even McCain did not READ the article.
If he had, he wouldn't have said "Nothing in the article is true."
The class should use McCain's press conference as an example of how to raise follow-up questions.
"WHAT, exactly, is not true, Senator?"
McCain claims he wasn't aware of what his subordinates were telling Iseman. So he couldn't say it "wasn't true" that they were shielding him from her.
The story says McCain's subordinates say they suspected an affair. But McCain cannot say that "wasn't true" since he didn't know what his staffers were doing.
So the "what" is the affair which, again, The Times did not assert but The Times only reported that McCain's own staffers suspected.
And THAT is TRUE.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 23, 2008 4:13 PM
"The NYT fictional piece does have some redeeming value: It will be used for decades in college
classes."
Posted by: Stanford
And if they still read in colleges and if anyone bothers to read THE ARTICLE and not just the BACKLASH they will quickly conclude that most people did not READ in our time but rather went on partisanship and emotion.
Even McCain did not READ the article.
If he had, he wouldn't have said "Nothing in the article is true."
The class should use McCain's press conference as an example of how to raise follow-up questions.
"WHAT, exactly, is not true, Senator?"
McCain claims he wasn't aware of what his subordinates were telling Iseman. So he couldn't say it "wasn't true" that they were shielding him from her.
The story says McCain's subordinates say they suspected an affair. But McCain cannot say that "wasn't true" since he didn't know what his staffers were doing.
So the "what" is the affair which, again, The Times did not assert but The Times only reported that McCain's own staffers suspected.
And THAT is TRUE.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | February 23, 2008 4:14 PM
McCain's indiscretions, saying one thing and doing the exact opposite, and being a lobbyist's ho - as exposed in the NYT piece, has now endeared him to conservatives. They now think he's one of them and are giving him money. Hilarious, and as predictable as their bashing of the NYT. If this was a piece about Obama their AM hate-jock cult leaders would be screaming to the high heavens until the election, and decades after that.
As for using "unnamed sources", this is used sometimes when papers do something called "news gathering". I know that this is a foreign concept to listeners of "Sean Hannity" or "Glenn Beck" and the rest of the conservative bobblehead cult leaders on conservative AM hate-jock RW hack radio (What is this thing called "news gathering"...) and especially Fox Noise.
They've never seen or heard of it. I'm sure it confuses them. Hey - how many conservative bobbleheads actually read the article, rather than be told what to think about it by their cult leaders on Fox Noise and conservative idiot AM hate-jock radio? Bet less than 1%.
Posted by: NickTrop | February 24, 2008 10:40 AM
Truth or Consequences
It is becoming more apparent each day that the Democratic Party will be guiding the course of American politics for the next four to eight years depending upon its degree of success. As this reality looms closer, the Republican Party, in order to exert any influence upon the hearts and minds of the American people, will undoubtedly employ any means necessary to acquire control of the media. A good illustration of this type of influence was exhibited during the Presidential Election of 2004. It is now a matter of historical record that the Karl Rove propaganda machine, funded by T. Boone Pickens, launched a campaign of lies to disparage the military record of John Kerry. The subsequent character assassination produced a new colloquialism in the American lexicon labeled, “swift boating.” The American people have since expressed disappointment, if not outrage, for the implementation of this deceitful practice.
Let’s imagine the following scenario: Four prominent journalists employed by a major newspaper known for its support for liberal policies are approached by the Karl Rove propaganda locomotive which is now an independent contract apparatus funded by the same private interests which own the Republican Party. Let’s say these four journalists are enticed into planting a vague, if not fictitious, story in their newspaper which, hypothetically, involved sexual improprieties on the part of a leading conservative Presidential candidate. Let’s say, in return, these writers are offered a prominent place in either the Rove Truth Grinder or, perhaps, an upper echelon position with a competing enterprise such as the Rupert Murdoch Fact Assassins, Inc. To sweeten the deal, they are offered surreptitious cash incentives and an open window into the Republican underground during the next administration.
The benefits from the successful execution of this plot would be the following: First and foremost, the credibility of the hypothetical newspaper which, up until this point, has served as the gold standard in journalism would be severely compromised. Second, the subsequent loss of readership and advertising dollars would deplete the dollar value of the entire enterprise. The few journalists who still respect the First Amendment would seek out new venues for its protection and preservation, perhaps on the internet (politico.com, huffingtonpost.com, etc.). The skeletal remains of The Newspaper, Inc. would ultimately be sold and fall into the hands of the highest bidder, perhaps the Murdoch group. Thus, silencing a prominent liberal voice forever. This drama may seem far-fetched however, this is America, where everything is for sale, including the truth.
The American people are tired of and disgusted with negative campaigning. The latest attacks on John McCain have done nothing but increase support for the Republican Party, which has been noticeably weak of late. Karl Rove “won” the Presidential campaign for George Bush in 2004 by spreading a blanket of lies, deceit, and fear over the entire American heartland, one county at a time. He will employ similar techniques to discredit and disqualify key players in the Democratic Party one by one, even if it requires falsely attacking members of his own party and attributing blame to the “liberals.” Rove is a master of deceit, the same deceit which coats the underbelly of all Republican politics. It has no limits.
--Quinn Stilletto, President unwantedchildren.com
Posted by: Quinn Stilletto | February 25, 2008 2:14 AM