by James Rainey
A Washington lobbyist who said the New York Times implied she had an improper relationship with Sen. John McCain will drop her defamation lawsuit against the newspaper, which today said it never intended that readers conclude the two were having an affair.
In an unusual arrangement to settle Vicki Iseman's $27-million suit, the newspaper plans to post an opinion column by the lobbyist's lawyers on its on-line edition this afternoon.
Washington Bureau Chief Dean Baquet, in a memo to his staff today, depicted the events as a victory, since the paper did not retract any of the story or pay any money to Iseman, a telecommunications lobbyist, who said her reputation was severely damaged by the Feb. 21, 2008, report.
"We paid no money. We did not apologize. We did not retract one word of the story, which was a compelling chapter in the tale of Sen. John McCain and his political rise," Baquet said in his note.
"The story stands as a powerful examination of a presidential candidate who cast himself as an ethics reformer and scourge of special interests," the Baquet e-mail continued, "yet seemed blind at times over the course of his career to appearances of conflicts of interest."
Baquet said that a note to readers will appear in Friday's newspaper and that it "repeats what we had already said in countless interviews, that the article did not state or intend to conclude that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic relationship with Mr. McCain."
But Iseman's suit, filed in December in a federal court in Virginia, demanded damages because it said the front page article falsely implied that she and the Arizona senator had an affair as McCain was campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination in 1999.
"That the New York Times would make such aggressive and sensational allegations and insinuations in the face of on-the-record denials by Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain only reinforced the message to readers that The New York Times in fact believed that Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain had indeed engaged in an 'inappropriate relationship,'" the lawsuit charged, "a relationship that was romantic, unethical, and a conflict of interest."
The lawsuit named the newspaper, editor Bill Keller, Baquet and four reporters.
The story created a furor when it appeared nearly a year ago, with conservative commentators rallying to McCain's defense and press critics dividing on whether the Times had gone too far.
The Republican's campaign manager called the story "scurrilous" and "a sleazy smear attack."
The candidate and his party both used the piece as fodder for Internet fundraising appeals.
The story, "For McCain, Self Confidence of Ethics Poses its Own Risk," focused on concerns among the senator's aides about his frequent interactions with lobbyists, in particular Iseman, as he was running for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination.
The story said that McCain aides were concerned about the relationship with Iseman on two levels: because it tended to contradict his profile as a maverick who kept his distance from Washington insiders and because if might be perceived that the much septuagenarian lawmaker was involved romantically with Iseman, now 41.
Quoting anonymous sources the paper said aides became "convinced the relationship had become romantic ... and intervened to protect the candidate from himself."
(Photo by Stephen Boitano/Getty Images)
Comments
Grampy McCain was doing favors for her as a lobbyist, whether they were intimate or not doesn't really matter anymore because (thankfully) Grampy has been pushed into the dust bin of irrelevancy by the American people.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 19, 2009 5:14 PM
Wonders happen when a bias, liberal, bankrupt, inept reporting rag sheet is now controlled by a Mexican national and his billions. The Swamp should stop using its suspect articles, questionable information and sources as it reflects poorly on your integrity as a news source. The bloodhounds are better!
Posted by: Bubba Porter | February 19, 2009 5:21 PM
Share of the NYT is at the level of what a paper costs - it's a rag living on borrowed time.
Posted by: vla | February 19, 2009 5:30 PM
Shares of the NYPost is at the level of what a paper costs - it's a right-wing rag living on borrowed time.
Posted by: pla | February 19, 2009 6:18 PM
The legacy of Jayson Blair lives on - liberal journalism at its best (worst?).
Posted by: Terry | February 19, 2009 6:42 PM
Still waitng for the 'paper of record" to let us know who DA BABY DADDY OF THE EDWARDS affair.. nice to know that as of today the sunday nyt cost more than it's closing price on stock.. LMAO
Posted by: jack | February 19, 2009 6:54 PM
It really doesn't matter to the slimes now does it? they did the damage they hoped to BUT they at the time gave conservatives a reason to coalese around McCain....nothing brings Conservatives together more than the MSM going after one of theirs!
Posted by: Jaded | February 19, 2009 7:44 PM
The NYTimes really isn't a newspaper. It is a dishonest
anti-Repblican screed. It is truly shameful. There is nothing wrong with bias, but this "newspaper" goes far beyond that. Most of its columnists are so biased as to evoke laughter. Keep MoDo though. At least she doesn't take herself so seriously.
Posted by: lee tabin | February 19, 2009 7:58 PM
She got no money, no apology, and no retraction, so I think the Times won.
Posted by: rupert | February 19, 2009 8:00 PM
"The NYTimes really isn't a newspaper. It is a dishonest
anti-Repblican screed."
Right. Check out the Scooter Libby/Judith Miller debacle some time. Oh, and didn't they publish William Kristol's neo-con commentary last year, and........ get real.
Posted by: Flo | February 19, 2009 9:41 PM
I once read the NYT daily and couldn't imagine starting a day without it. I haven't read it in five years, since I know the point of ALL the articles. Pinch is like the nerdy, social outcast leftwingers I went to college with in the late '60's (like Bill Ayers), except without the courage to bomb people. He inherited a newspaper, turned it into a propaganda rag, and it's failing. HOORAY!
Posted by: JP Gaynor | February 20, 2009 1:18 AM
Actually, she got a retraction of the implication, which is all she ever wanted in the first place. Even the Times' own Public Editor agrees that starting off by implying an inappropriate sexual relationship was no way to start a story that was supposedly about lobbyist ties.
Let the rag die.
Posted by: Jeff | February 20, 2009 10:52 AM
"Even the Times' own Public Editor agrees that starting off by implying an inappropriate sexual relationship was no way to start a story that was ... about lobbyist ties." Posted by: Jeff
Anyone who actually read the story (I did) can agree with that; it was in fact a pretty good story about lobbyists and McCain. But to be fair, it's the NY Post that deserves to be called a "rag."
Posted by: Flo | February 20, 2009 11:48 AM
I agree, Flo, I'm still waiting for the Times story on the lobbyist ties of David Axelrod, who secured the largest lobbying contract in the history of New York state while preparing to manage Obama's campaign. Amazing that the Times missed that one right under their noses.
Posted by: Jeff | February 20, 2009 2:56 PM
"Actually, she got a retraction of the implication, which is all she ever wanted in the first place."
She filed a lawsuit in federal court for damages claiming defamation, and all she wanted was that??
You've got to be kidding me.
And I'm sure McCain enjoyed the "implication," she's cute.
Posted by: mort | February 20, 2009 3:54 PM
The NY Times - All the News that fit to line your bird cage with.
Posted by: Terry | February 20, 2009 4:01 PM
Read the statement, Mort, that's exactly what she filed the lawsuit over, her good name. That's what publishing a deliberate falsehood is, defamation. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court adopted the term "actual malice" and gave it constitutional significance, at the same time defining it in terms of the proof which had previously been usual.
If a publisher is found to have acted with "actual malice" and published a falsehood that they knew was reasonably false they'd be liable for damages. The Times took the unprecedented step of publishing the "note" and denying the existence of an implication of a sexual relationship between McCain and Iseman (one that even the Times' own public editor said was obvioulsy implied by the story), BECAUSE they were afraid of having to prove they did not show actual malice in their reporting. Why would an affair be relevant, after all, if the story was really all about lobbying, as the Times said it was?
The Times was seriously scared of having to defend the lawsuit in court and try to prove that Iseman - who is not a celebrity or public office holder - was a "public person" by the court's definition.
They were also wary of having to settle with her for money like CBS did with General William Westmoreland in Westmoreland vs. CBS. For those reasons, they chose to give her the retraction of the implication.
So, in closing, YOU'VE got to be kidding ME.
Posted by: Jeff | February 20, 2009 5:29 PM
There was no deliberate falsehood; just an "implication" and no damages. Stop kidding yourself. Filing a lawsuit over an "implication" is frivolous. It was apparent from reading the article that there was no accusation of an affair. Since she was not a public figure, she could have won easily if there was a defamation.
Posted by: mort | February 20, 2009 7:43 PM
She sued for $27 million, gets nothing, and jeff declares victory; you're sounding a lot like Eric Cantor, my man.
Posted by: rupert | February 20, 2009 8:12 PM