|
|
February 21, 2008
For the New York Times, Too, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Risks"From the looks of it, the paper is going to have to fight for its story--and its ethics--in the court of public opinion, but this is not something the Times is ever comfortable doing..."New post! Public Editor to Bill Keller: “You Haven’t Got it.” (Feb. 25) A few riddles, questions and observations about the story that everyone—including John McCain—is talking about this morning: For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk by four reporters at the New York Times…
Posted by Jay Rosen at February 21, 2008 10:15 AM
Comments
Lynn Sweet at the Sun-Times (via Steve Rhodes at The Beachwood Reporter, second link at top of column for Thursday, Feb. 21) has been very quick to jump on the fact that Barack Obama has benefited from sex scandals involving his opponents. I think the implication is obvious, and certainly will be picked up by opponents of the "liberal media". Really well said. The central disconnect at the NYT seems to have nothing to do with politics... I am as right as they come in the MSM and I'd have run that story in a heartbeat. But then, I am pretty comfortable being tabloidy. The NYT's constant blather about its high standards, moral rectitude blah, blah, layers of editors "fit to print" better than everybody else leaves the door open to the accusation of politics ... either they are full of it when they talk about their high standards or there is a political agenda that taints their decisions. I just think they are full of it. Posted by: Dave Mastio at February 21, 2008 11:55 AM | Permalink It was too thin after the lawyering. On the other hand, the Washington Post's story had John Weaver telling the woman to get lost. It would have been pretty solid as a story about being too close to a lobbyist. But the Times didn't come close to making a case, other than, as you say, "trust us," that there was an affair. A bad day for the Times... Posted by: Dan Gillmor at February 21, 2008 12:32 PM | Permalink McCain had been pushing back against the story since at least December. When have Punch and Keller ever stuck to their guns and not backed down? Instead, they take their usual tack to sit on their reporting staff while the lawyers wrangle and the clock runs out. All this while, the competitive phase of the Republican nominating process was ongoing, as McCain's arc reverses direction and began to climb. The story had relevance then but is diffuse and diluted now. We can all be curious about timing, but it may be that there is something highly appealing in McCain's platform for Punch and Keller. So one way of looking at this, is that the timing was designed to minimize the impact on McCain. It comes weeks too late to seriously wound his nomination claim, and it comes at a relatively fallow news period for the Republicans. So while it may be a big story on the side of the aisle for awhile, it will play out in a more abstract context than if it were in the midst of competitive primaries, and thus may fade if the Democratic race continues to use up all the oxygen. It also becomes "old hat" well before the conventions, and thus easier to spin as a non-story. So if you think of this as another instance of Punch and Keller frustrating their own reporting staff because they believe it serves an interest that they editorially support, as was the case on the Iraq and Wiretapping reporting, then the timing makes sense. The delay diffuses the impact of the story on McCain, and also undercuts the relevancy of the underlying story, and permits a lot of peripheral stories and attacks. If you accept the premise that Punch and Keller are willing to compromise their own reporting, then also inviting an extra layer of criticism is not all that far fetched. Posted by: Mark J. McPherson at February 21, 2008 1:39 PM | Permalink What are you saying? That Arthur Sulzberger should have over-ridden the editorial board's decision to endorse McCain, based on something he may or may not have known about a story the paper might or might not have ever been prepared to publish? What a furor that would have caused! Posted by: Heather Dewar at February 21, 2008 1:42 PM | Permalink re: Endorsements. Newspapers need to stop making unsigned editorial board endorsements. Period. In fact, we ought to just bite the bullet and give up unsigned editorials. But I digress. It's a lawyered story from a paper that just wished the ambiguity would go away. But ambiguity is a bad penny. Here's what I just got from the McCain campaign: Well, here we go. We could expect attacks were coming; as soon as John McCain appeared to be locking up the Republican nomination, the liberal establishment and their allies at the New York Times have gone on the attack. Today's front-page New York Times story is particularly disgusting - an un-sourced hit-and-run smear campaign designed to distract from the issues at stake in this election. With John McCain leading a number of general-election polls against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the New York Times knew the time to attack was now, and they did. We will not allow their scurrilous attack against a great American hero to stand. So. Joy. Here are our choices: Bill Keller acting like an arrogant prick or the McCain people playing the Liberal Media Bias Card, as if that explains away everything. Maybe it's time for Big Papers to just get out of the business of breaking news. They clearly don't enjoy it, and they process this stuff to death. A real head-scratcher, I agree: http://tinyurl.com/ytq38o Posted by: john c abell at February 21, 2008 3:34 PM | Permalink Heather, I'd agree except this is the NYT. They don't operate like a 'normal' newsroom, if there even is such a beast. Mark McPherson's point is this context is excellent. The NYT couldn't have picked a better way to innoculate McCain with Teflon. Posted by: Mx Renn at February 21, 2008 3:36 PM | Permalink There's so much I don't understand after reading Gabriel Sherman's TNR article. Two reporters left the NYT because this story didn't get published sooner, and yet the final story is so thin? What did the NYT's Marc Santora and Marilyn Thompson see in the story that we haven't yet? I agree with that sense, NewsCat. Anyone for a read on Keller's statement: “On the substance we think the story speaks for itself. In all the uproar, no one has challenged what we actually reported. On the timing: Our policy is we publish stories when they’re ready. “Ready” means that the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it.” Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2008 3:54 PM | Permalink Slate's Jack Shafer weighs in and defends the Times reporting: 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. I'm disppointed to find you serving up this sorry little apologia for John MCain. The Times reported that the staff of a U.S. senator warned a female lobbyist to stop coming around because it might tarnish the senator's reputation for probity, both political and personal. The Times did =not= say there was an affair; it did not say there were any quid-pro-quos. My bet is there wouldn't be a peep out of you, or most of your commenters, or most of the the others who are dumping all over The Times if this story were about Hillary Clinton and a male lobbyist. The press (and its so-called scrutinizers) have been fluffing McCain for years and years. Lizza's piece in the The New Yorker is the latest example: Lizza demonstrates that McCain is a liar, a panderer, a lockstep right-wing legislator, an adulterer, and a pretty dangerous hothead. And none of it matters. Because the boys on the bus (and their colleagues all over, and you apparently) love him, love him, love him. Posted by: Camorrista at February 21, 2008 6:04 PM | Permalink Your "apparently" is inaccurate. I am not a McCain supporter and do not think his image in the press is quite deserved. I look forward to its replacement with something more truthful and nuanced. The question of where this "love" for McCain comes from is an interesting one, and worth a post in itself, but to expect that relationship to survive a presidential campaign where he's the Republican nomineee is too much. It won't. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2008 6:22 PM | Permalink I like the grim, grind it out, three yards and a cloud of culture war dust feel of this statement from the RNC. ""The New York Times has proven once again that the liberal mainstream media will do whatever it takes to put Senator Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the White House." (Link.) Michelle Cottle: "Simply brandish the phrase 'liberal media,' and the party faithful are expected to whip out their checkbooks, no questions asked." Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2008 6:41 PM | Permalink Jay, Wouldn't Keller be another person "who would have known about the paper’s struggles with McCain and his lawyers over today’s story, and who read and approved the paper’s endorsements — or should have"? Keller certainly seems to be the one who pushed for better reporting on this story. I thought Andy's inverted pyramid and sex sells take was also interesting. The affair is the issue because it leads and ends the story. The affair "sells" the story. Keller's "the story speaks for itself" and "we publish when we're ready" is spin. I love when journalists spin. It's a revealing and informative act by members of the "holy profession." Hmm, great post. Being confident can reap numerous advantages. If you really need help, then you should find out more at http://www.confidencebuildingcourses.com. Plenty of tips & guides for you. I thought this was rich, "The New York Times asked for a formal interview and I said no and asked for written questions." I canceled my subscription to the Times years ago. Posted by: Robert at February 21, 2008 8:59 PM | Permalink In response to Tim at 7:38, no, Keller would not be another such person. The editorial page staff does not report to him. The editorial page editor reports directly to the publisher. Posted by: Paul at February 21, 2008 10:28 PM | Permalink Ya'll have it WRONG. Really, really wrong. The NYT has endorsed Hillary. Obama makes her look really bad. So those that have chosen Obama must be made to understand that they erred. How? McCain must defeat Obama! How to increase McCain's popularity? Make him look like the victim of a Democratic smear attack! Posted by: Sergiu G. at February 21, 2008 10:34 PM | Permalink But watch for Clark Hoyt’s next ombudsman column. I would not be surprised at all if he comes out with a verdict esssentially saying: you didn’t have it. Jay, I'll bet you a fish taco dinner next time you're in San Diego against whatever signature food they've got in New York next time there that Hoyt's verdict won't be nearly so cut-and-dried that the NYT "didn't have it." Posted by: Hoystory at February 21, 2008 10:41 PM | Permalink Keller: In all the uproar, no one has challenged what we actually reported. Indeed not, because what the Times actually reported adds up to nothing -- it's what they insinuated had happened, without saying directly, that caused the uproar. Keller's statement is profoundly disingenuous. But it's at least an improvement on Dan Rather's defense of his story; Keller isn't expecting us to believe things that are provably untrue. As for the cultural right, of course they will drop this story into the "liberal media bias" narrative. They've been predicting MSM hit pieces about McCain since Romney dropped out of the nomination contest. Hence the grim tone of the RNC's statement -- the Times is acting just as the RNC had foreseen. Mark J. McPherson: your argument assumes that there is an actual story damaging to McCain behind this, and that Sulzberger and Keller are sufficiently partisan in McCain's favor to distort the Times' reporting to conceal that story, and were willing to exploit (and confirm) the Right's charge against them of liberal bias to accomplish this. It's that last bit which makes the argument morally impossible -- nobody in the MSM will admit to a partisan political bias, and would be even less willing to create evidence of such a bias deliberately. Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 21, 2008 11:25 PM | Permalink "Jay, I'll bet you a fish taco dinner next time you're in San Diego against whatever signature food they've got in New York next time there that Hoyt's verdict won't be nearly so cut-and-dried that the NYT "didn't have it." That would be lox and bagel at Barnie Greengrass. I said I wouldn't be surprised if he found "essentially" that they didn't have the goods. I would be surprised if it was a cut and dried verdict. Ombudsman columns rarely are. I think the Times had reasons for running the story; I said I also thought it was thin. I think the culture warriors are cracked on the subject, and the Times will be its usual opaque self. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 21, 2008 11:27 PM | Permalink The difference between McCain and the New York Times is that only one of them is running for president and spent decades in DC. Posted by: Speed Limit at February 22, 2008 12:10 AM | Permalink The question isn’t did John McCain have sex with that woman. The question is did John McCain take $85,000 from her corporate clients, did he write letters to the FCC on behalf of her clients, and did he accept free flights on her client’s corporate jets? I don’t care if McCain cheated on his wife. I do care about possible corruption whether it’s technically “legal” or not. I think that too many people are making this "McCain vs. The New York Times" and that's silly. But I can see why McCain's camp wants people to see it that way. I'm concerned with whether or not these allegations are true. I could care less if McCain had sex with a woman other than his wife. But I am troubled by the possibility that McCain was compromised by his personal relationship with this lobbyist. __Did McCain have an affair with this lobbyist? Who knows? Who cares? Did McCain use his position as a senator to benefit this lobbyist and her corporate clients? That's the important question and it's one that isn't settled yet. __Most of McCain's knee-jerk defenders seem to be outraged that this story was ever published. None of them seem to even acknowledge the possibility that McCain's integrity and honesty may be a real issue. What will they do if these allegations are eventually proven? Posted by: snesich at February 22, 2008 12:25 AM | Permalink Mark J. McPherson, did you understand what you wrote? I didn't and therefore am grateful that you repeated it at least 3 times in one comment - this enabled me to not understand it 3 times. Posted by: Speed Limit at February 22, 2008 12:30 AM | Permalink By concentrating on the possible romantic side of this article, you and others are missing the point. McCain has cast himself (since he got caught with his fingers in the cookie jar in the Keatingh Five scandal) as a straight-shooter and an enemey of special interests. Yet, this article shows that he is cozy (if if NOT in a romantic way) with Washington, D.C. lobbyists. Doesn't the article also talk about the plane rides he took on corporate jets while heat of the Senate Commerce Committee? You are missing that. An excellent article that explored McCain's links with lobbyists is this: ****#Jeffrey H. Bimbaum and John Solomon, “McCain’s Unlikely ties to K Street; 32 Lobbyists Aiding Industry’s Longtime Foe”, Washington Post (Dec. 31, 2007). I know it's hard for the press to stop looking for romantic relationship stories, here the focus should be on McCain's strong ties to lobbyists and what they expect out of him in return. Posted by: Frank F at February 22, 2008 12:37 AM | Permalink Sergiu G, by that same logic, the NYT supported Bush in 2000 and again in 2004? Posted by: Michael G at February 22, 2008 12:42 AM | Permalink Snesich you hit it right on the head (your post came in while I was typing mine). The real question is McCain's cozy relationship with lobbyists (even since his involvement with the corrupt Charles Keating, Jr.). Your post is excellent and should be read by the person who head this web and by all involved. Why can't the media get it? Posted by: fflambeau at February 22, 2008 12:42 AM | Permalink One wonders if the press will be dropping an 11th-hour story like they did before one of the Bush elections (drunk driving charge, was it)? It's odd they would run this story whilst Clinton and Obama are still knocking heads. Does this mean they feel they have juicier stories to follow or that they had to run with it now to make best use of it? Posted by: Spidey at February 22, 2008 12:48 AM | Permalink Jay Rosen, You've got it all wrong because you are looking at the wrong things in the article. As ably pointed out by snesich at February 22, 2008 12:25 AM, the real focus should be on McCain's relationships with the lobbyists in question (and other too that are not mentioned but are in the Washington Post article I link later). As the Washington Post article I cited above indicates, McCain has more relationships with more lobbyists and has taken more money from them than any politicians. See: Jeffrey H. Bimbaum and John Solomon, “McCain’s Unlikely ties to K Street; 32 Lobbyists Aiding Industry’s Longtime Foe”, Washington Post (Dec. 31, 2007). THAT SHOULD BE THE FOCUS, not any possible romantic question, which as snesich indicates most people could care less about. Snecich's post is so good, read it again: "The question isn’t did John McCain have sex with that woman. The question is did John McCain take $85,000 from her corporate clients, did he write letters to the FCC on behalf of her clients, and did he accept free flights on her client’s corporate jets? I don’t care if McCain cheated on his wife. I do care about possible corruption whether it’s technically “legal” or not. I think that too many people are making this "McCain vs. The New York Times" and that's silly. But I can see why McCain's camp wants people to see it that way. I'm concerned with whether or not these allegations are true. I could care less if McCain had sex with a woman other than his wife. But I am troubled by the possibility that McCain was compromised by his personal relationship with this lobbyist. __Did McCain have an affair with this lobbyist? Who knows? Who cares? Did McCain use his position as a senator to benefit this lobbyist and her corporate clients? That's the important question and it's one that isn't settled yet. __Most of McCain's knee-jerk defenders seem to be outraged that this story was ever published. None of them seem to even acknowledge the possibility that McCain's integrity and honesty may be a real issue. What will they do if these allegations are eventually proven?" Posted by: snesich at February 22, 2008 12:25 AM Posted by: fflambeau at February 22, 2008 12:57 AM | Permalink Speed Limit: Its a layered thing, a layered thing, a layered thing. The story has an immediate impact on McCain, in terms of its play in the first news cycles, and its ability to be tied to disputed issues of character and "straight-talking" during the contested portion of the primaries. The timing avoided a blow to McCain at a time when he was vulnerable, and the convoluted editing and irrelevance of it reduced the overall damage to McCain over the longer haul, by shortening its legs. That's 5 times, if you're still counting. Will Bunch put it this way:
Simply put, as it's playing out right now, the story was -- probably unintentionally, although who knows -- timed perfectly to help out McCain. Its insinuations of an improper relationship between the powerful senator and Vicki Iseman came too late to hurt McCain with the "values voters" in the GOP primaries, but at exactly the right time to rally right-wing talk radio against the Times, and thus for a candidate they can now support in November while holding their collective nose. The Republican Right is already howling over the bombshell dropped by The New York Times on John McCain, the GOP's all-but-official nominee. It's an outrage, they say. A deliberate torpedo. A liberal media smear. Sorry, but these guys have got it backwards. The Times, in fact, couldn't have found a moment more favorable for Johnny Mack to let this fearsome cat out of the bag. If McCain could have personally chosen when to have this story break, it would have been right about now. When the Times has a potentially damaging story to a candidate it does not endorse, it seems to be more able, as Keller says, to get a story "ready" to publish. See, for example, "Old Friends Say Drugs Played Bit Part in Obama’s Young Life". For some reason, the Times was able to get that beaut out within a few days of Super Tuesday, after it had become clear that Hillary Clinton had not landed a knockout punch and was going to need help in staggering Obama in the looming, heavily contested primaries. Posted by: Mark J. McPherson at February 22, 2008 1:36 AM | Permalink the new york times has really helped john mccain with this article and hurt themselves after all it takes an idiot to believe this story it makes the new york times look like a fool which they are Posted by: linda at February 22, 2008 10:04 AM | Permalink fflambeau: You've got it all wrong because you are looking at the wrong things in the article... the real focus should be on McCain's relationships with the lobbyists in question. New York Times article: Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened.... Well, uh, hmmmm... how do I explain this? If you want a big article on the Republican nominee's ties to lobbyists to focus on the influence industry and the candidate's participation in that shady system, despite his image of honor and rectitude, then you are best advised not to add an unproven accusation of adultery via anonymous sources because it might, you know, get in the way of the other journalism you've done, especially since the romance charge, if proven true, would be what they call in corporate law an "enterprise threatening event," and in a criminal law a "head shot," most likely sinking the nominee's campaign. And since there is no one at the New York Times who does not know this, no one who would be surprised at where the public and political attention would go in such a story, it remains a bit of a mystery why the Times did that, especially since, as I pointed out, the Washington Post put much of the same information into an article that mentioned nothing about the romance. As far as I can tell, the Times does have an explanation, which is quite lame. And that explanation is... "No, no, you don't understand, maybe because you don't know how journalism works. We aren't making any accusation of adultery; we're just reporting that two McCain aides were convinced he was having an affair. That's what they told us, so that's what we reported." Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2008 10:15 AM | Permalink NYT = Not Yet Thinking.... Posted by: Ennis at February 22, 2008 10:18 AM | Permalink Greetings, Personally, I found the NYT article to be clear and credible. The lobbying questions were well substantiated, and not entirely outdated given the connection to Ms. Iseman. The campaign aides may have been disaffected, but it is unreasonable to imply that their concerns over appearances were fabricated, given three sources. The statements are what they are. I see nothing wrong with saying that the aides were "convinced", and I am capable of imagining the situation quite easily. Sen. McCain and Ms. Iseman liked each other, and perhaps had a bit of a spark, and his aides rushed in to dump water on it. (So what.) The troubling aspect politically is the lobbying story, which reveals, at least, a pattern of recklessness on Sen. McCains's part. thanks, Mark Flanders Posted by: Mark Flanders at February 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Permalink Thanks Mark. McCain adviser John Weaver confirmed, on the record, the gist of that paragraph except for the suspicions about sex. So again, anonymous sources aren't the issue. It's that they offered nothing other than their suspicions that McCain and Iseman were having an affair. How did the Times reach the point that it's reporting unconfirmed suspicions about a presidential candidate on page one? The managing editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: I chose not to run the New York Times story on John McCain in Thursday's P-I, even though it was available to us on the New York Times News Service. I thought I'd take a shot at explaining why.... Also the Boston Globe, owned by the New York Times Co., ran the Post's version. That has to hurt. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2008 11:25 AM | Permalink If the NYT ran this to inoculate McCain, they did so at a great price. A huge price. Still, there is precedent. When Clinton was in trouble for lying under oath and so forth, the libs would claim it's all about sex and why are you rethugs so hung up on sex. Maybe the NYT was setting up the same thing for McCain. That's too high a price to pay for that kind of help for McCain, even if it were faintly believable that the reporting side wanted to help McCain. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 22, 2008 11:55 AM | Permalink If you are interested (1:20, Friday afternoon) you can watch the Times answers to many of the questions we have unfold in slow motion at their "live" Q and A with readers. Already we have Keller saying: I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot. And, frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story. I wonder why that was...? Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2008 1:25 PM | Permalink Those of you going on the defensive and trying alibi the logic of posting this garbage need to remember your words about ethics being important when the repubs finally get a go at your candidate. mccain will appear as pure as the driven snow when the repubs start drudging up the chicago stuff on obamma or the white water/rose law firm stuff on hillary...and you can bet your boots it'll happen...then hillary can make some more silly comments about "less hat and more cows" and we can ALL lol!! Posted by: rick at February 22, 2008 1:33 PM | Permalink The Times continues on it's self destructive path with yet another "hidden agenda" attack innuendo article. They claim such frivolity is justified because the "right" has chosen the high road with regard to moral standards and so that makes them fair game. I guess they will never be satisfied until all succumb and stoop to their level. Nobody is right is everyone is wrong. Posted by: whobehe at February 22, 2008 3:19 PM | Permalink They let through the endorsement question during the Times live Q and A with readers, featuring editors and reporters who worked on the story. Why endorse when they knew this was coming? The A. talks about separation of powers, and the Drudge factor. "This particular situation was especially odd because most everyone in politics and journalism — including, I assume, our colleagues on the editorial page — knew we were working on a story about Senator McCain, courtesy of an item on Drudge in December. Whether that influenced the editorial page’s deliberations, I have no idea." --Richard W. Stevenson, political editor. Check. And some people are asking: Why didn't it influence...? Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2008 3:30 PM | Permalink And, frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story. I wonder why that was...? Apart from the reason you've mentioned already -- that the adultery charge is more obviously scandalous, and thus bound to draw public attention -- I suggest that the "larger point" is not, in fact, newsworthy, or likely to shift public opinion of McCain. The only action of McCain's listed in the Post's article that is connected to Iseman or her clients is the letters to the FCC, asking for a fast decision on the Paxson case. Asking a government bureaucracy to get its job done more quickly does not, to the typical voter, seem at all extraordinary -- it looks more like ordinary constituency service than official corruption. It's only worth noting because McCain hadn't made such requests for anyone else; it's unusual for him, not unusual (or corrupt) in itself. Of course you could argue that the typical voter is wrong, and there is something inherently corrupt in the trade of the corporate lobbyist. My own opinion is that the federal government's ability to dispose of many billions of dollars for any conceivable purpose is the real root of the trouble; expecting to keep money out of politics, when politics decides how so much money is spent, is a pipe dream. But the lobbyists didn't make the federal government, and they don't write apologetics for it; they only work within it. It isn't reasonable to condemn them, but not the laws and customs which create them. Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 22, 2008 4:24 PM | Permalink Breaking news! You heard it here first! Newspapers are no stranger to mergers; that’s how the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer got their names, to name just two prominent examples. Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 22, 2008 8:59 PM | Permalink To Michael Brazier who wrote: "The only action of McCain's listed in the Post's article that is connected to Iseman or her clients is the letters to the FCC, asking for a fast decision on the Paxson case." Wrong. Read the article again. It talks about free rides that McCain took on corporate jets and something like $85,000 he also took from them. Remember, McCain at the time in question was not only a senator but Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. Do you not see something wrong with accepting free rides (that would have cost thousands if he had to take commercial jets or charter one) from a company that had issues before the committee McCain was on or chaired? To Mr. Rosen and your response at February 21, 2008 6:41 PM. Please look at the first several paragraphs of this, your, web site. There you, Mr. Rosen, focus on the timing of the article and on other matters. "It leads with the strongest fact to emerge from the Times account: that former McCain aide John Weaver had met with the women in question to ask her to stay away, a meeting—and an agenda—that Weaver confirmed to the Times and the Post. If there’s any “hard” news in these accounts to support the appearance of ethical taint, that is it." So it's clear that you believe the strongest point of the Washington Post article is not McCain's taking favors from special interests and lobbyists, but the sexual angle. You even are dismissive of what I and many others believe to be the chief point of this article (McCain's close links with lobbyists despite his "straight talk")with your "IF THERE'S ANY "HARD NEWS" IN THESE ACCOUNTS TO SUPPORT THE APPEARANCE OF ETHICAL TAINT, THAT IS IT." (my emphasis) "IF" on ethical taint, Mr. Rosen? What about the free rides on corporate jets, what about taking $85,000 from lobbyists? That's not an "if" Mr. Rosen, those are facts. I think you have some bias yourself in this case. Posted by: fflambeau at February 22, 2008 9:08 PM | Permalink To those of you above who misrepresent the NY Times article by saying it has "no beef", and especially Mr. Brazier and Mr. Rosen, please note: 1. the article lays out McCain's role in the Keating Five scandal. It does this to underscore the fact that McCain was involved in a scandal decades ago and did things then (flying on Keating's private jet, taking money from him to thrwart federal action on his savings and loan) that HE CONTINUES TO DO TODAY. 2. Far from Mr. Brazier's indication that the article shows almost no ties with lobbyists, the article clearly states: "A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson." This is aside from the letters that McCain sent on Paxson's behalf. Again, this is very similar to what he was doing for Keating---actions that got him indicted and reprimanded. 3. Note also this meat in the article. Rich Davis--is working for FREE FOR McCAIN since last summer. As the article points out, "this is a gift worth tens of thousands of dollars." Davis is a former lobbyist. 4. If there is a problem with the NYT article, it is that it DOES NOT EXPLORE ENOUGH these cozy McCain-lobbyists relationships. Elsewhere, for instance, it has been reported that: in 2003 and 2004, McCain, as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee took two actions favorable to Cablevision, the cable TV company, while Davis, his chief political strategist at the time, solicited the company for a total of $200,000 for the Reform Institute, a tax-exempt group that advocated an end to outsize political donations. See: Jeffrey H. Bimbaum and John Solomon, “McCain’s Unlikely ties to K Street; 32 Lobbyists Aiding Industry’s Longtime Foe”, Washington Post (Dec. 31, 2007). Here's the link. 5. Moreover, Davis, McCain's campaign 6. Note also that the NY TIMES article (for those who say there is "no beef" in the article, points out that McCain in 2001 helped found the Reform Institute and collected hundreds of thousands of dollars of "donations" from companies that lobbied the Senate Commerice Comnmittee which McCain chaired. He did not sever his ties with this "Reform Institute" until 2005, as noted in the article. I think this raises very troubling ethical issues. 7. The NY TIMES article also points out that McCain hired another individual Mark B. to be his Senate office chief--this person background? Another lobbyist for telecoms from 2001. So once again, a very strong pattern of close links to lobbyists, MANY OF THEM WHO HAD BUSINESS BEFORE McCAIN'S COMMITTEES. Mr. Rosen, try to pay attention to the money trail and not the nooky. Posted by: fflambeau at February 22, 2008 9:50 PM | Permalink Jay, I think the endorsement idea is absurd. It's like that a part of government goes to war with a country and another part sign comprehensive contract to build up their defense armament I didn't say the article had no beef, fflambeau. You made that up. I said the beef had no chance because the sex candy got served first. You consider that "focusing on the sex" because you are misreading my criticism, as well as where it comes from. Greg Sargent explained one of my problems with the story as follows... Here are some key "facts" from the article: Or, if you still don't get it, watch this video with Matt Welch, who wrote a book about McCain, commenting on the Times story and the way the sex screwed it up. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 22, 2008 11:27 PM | Permalink Read the article again. It talks about free rides that McCain took on corporate jets and something like $85,000 he also took from them. fflambeau, I was looking for things McCain did which can be interpreted as services to Iseman, not services Iseman performed for McCain. Do you not see something wrong with accepting free rides (that would have cost thousands if he had to take commercial jets or charter one) from a company that had issues before the committee McCain was on or chaired? Let's consider a few hypotheticals, of similar situations, and see if you react the same way. a) An environmentalist group offers free plane tickets, room, and board at a conference on global warming in Bali to a bureaucrat who is responsible for implementing the Kyoto Protocol in a state that ratified it. b) A head of state offers an exclusive interview to a reporter for a major newspaper, proposing to explain his reasons for a recent controversial action of his, and also offers to pay the reporter's travel expenses to and from the interview. Do you see anything wrong with the bureaucrat in a) or the reporter in b) accepting the offers made to them? And are the differences between their position and McCain's relevant to your ethical judgement? For instance, does it matter whom Iseman was acting on behalf of? Is it relevant that McCain was voted into his office? Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 23, 2008 12:08 AM | Permalink I can tell you the reporter would have violated ethical principles that are generally accepted in newsrooms. On the presidential trail, for example, news organizations pay the campaigns a good deal of money to fly on the campaign plane with the candidate. They do not accept free trips. Taking money (expenses) from a head of state you are going to be interview would be clear violation of professional ethics and everyone would denounce you if the matter became known. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 23, 2008 12:51 PM | Permalink The most disingenuous defense of the NYT story on McCain has to be Shafer's, of anonymice fame, who writes: The New York Times served onto the Web last night a meaty sandwich wrapped in slices of thin white—make that blond—bread that's giving indigestion to critics of the Times....Imagine, if you will, that the Times publishes a 3,000 word front page story leading and concluding with Larry Sinclair's civil suit and polygraph test; perhaps buttressed with a few former anonymous staffers. In between, the Times recounts Obama's ties to lobbyists which contradict his current rhetoric. Can we expect Shafer to defend the Times by analogizing that the story is "a meaty sandwich wrapped in slices of thin white" cocaine lines? fflambeau: "Mr. Rosen, try to pay attention to the money trail and not the nooky." Your real beef here is with the New York Times for serving up an appetizer that was more sensational than the entree. Mr. Keller's putative surprise at how many folks missed the larger point seems wholly disingenuous, when you look at how the article was structured. The romantic bombshell was positioned up front in purplish prose for maximum, highly dramatic, effect -- an effect compounded by the fact that it also represented the only new reporting in the piece. The decades old pedestrian content which followed never had a chance, which any editor worth his salt would know. Jay: In the Times Q&A, I thought it was telling that Keller et al. handed off the endorsement question to the political editor who, given the vaunted editorial/news divide was not, in fact, in a position to answer it. He's apparently scratching his head over that one himself, which is pretty amusing. Posted by: JM Hanes at February 23, 2008 3:23 PM | Permalink Totally amusing, yes. The reason that happened is that Times people typically listen to your question with the ears that have heard (they think....) the same question a thousand times. It's sometimes hard to get them to concentrate on what you are actually asking because they are always jumping ahead to what they think your real agenda is-- and your illusions about the Times. Here, they simply heard the question as the same 'ol one about the newsroom taking its cues from the editorial page. So they answered that. Which no one was asking. And when it came time to address the reader's actual question--in effect, why didn't the editorial page take better cues from the newsroom?--they admitted that they had no idea, and weren't the right people to be answering this at all, so why are you asking it, silly Times readers? Which is funny. Question was from Debbie Collazo, Tucson, Ariz. (Times to Debbie: Why are you asking us, you moron!) Compare to my, "How does the Times endorse McCain with a story like that looming, if it believes in the story?” As another example of this "ears" problem, one of the Times people who wrote to me said he had a bone to pick with my post : the "if they knew about this story, why did they endorse him?" part. He explained the problem with my thinking: there isn't one "they." There's two distinct "theys." Which is largely true. Only problem is: I didn't postulate any "theys." Knowing how tricky the matter is, I worded my post to avoid suggesting a single group of editors, plotting. But Times-people hear plotting whether you say it or not. What I wrote was: "If the facts in today’s article were not enough to make the Times re-think its endorsement, then why were they good enough for the front page of the paper, eight years after the events in question?" See? No "they." He actually misread the post (in a extremely small way, I grant) to make it conform to the criticism he knew how to counter. This is one reason the Times does so badly in public explanations. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 23, 2008 4:44 PM | Permalink The verdict is in from Clark Hoyt, public editor, and I won the bet. I agree with his conclusions. He came down where I would have and where the audience did. 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. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 23, 2008 7:46 PM | Permalink The reason that happened is that Times people typically listen to your question with the ears that have heard (they think....) the same question a thousand times. It's sometimes hard to get them to concentrate on what you are actually asking because they are always jumping ahead to what they think your real agenda is-- and your illusions about the Times. If that's what the Times does when answering questions, I'd expect them to do the same when asking questions -- which would make them utterly incompetent at their basic function. This fault is much worse than simple partisanship. Taking money (expenses) from a head of state you are going to be interview would be clear violation of professional ethics and everyone would denounce you if the matter became known. I'm not surprised. However, can you explain the reasoning behind this prohibition ... and does that reasoning transfer to the environmental bureaucrat's case, or to McCain's? That is, would the reporter's breach be of his own profession's specific ethos, or of the universal human ethos? Posted by: Michael Brazier at February 23, 2008 8:11 PM | Permalink "The reason that happened is that Times people typically listen to your question with the ears that have heard (they think....) the same question a thousand times." Oddly enough, I seem to have heard the same answers all too often too. The Times crowd approaches question and answer sessions as teaching opportunities, which I, personally, find even more annoying than spin. "It's sometimes hard to get them to concentrate on what you are actually asking because they are always jumping ahead to what they think your real agenda is-- and your illusions about the Times." Yes! I've also noticed that the other guy's agenda is always Keller's first defense; his Q & A opener is absolutely emblematic. If he hadn't stumbled over finding independents and Democrats among his critics -- not your usual identity politics! -- I suspect he'd have cut bait much sooner, because, you know, expecting him to put off tucking in the kids in order to explain himself is a little over the top. Posted by: JM Hanes at February 23, 2008 11:40 PM | Permalink Highlighting McCain’s lobbyist ties without doing it as part of a bigger piece on how all the candidates are influenced by where their money comes from does not help a voter, it helps a candidate (the other guy). Especially when it slides in some rumor and hearsay to keep everyone interested. (Thank you, Tim, BTW, for those Obama links….exactly what I mean.) It’s equally important to me to know why perhaps certain candidates are having astounding success getting millions of people to fork over much smaller sums (millions X small = HUGE). Perhaps it might be b/c those people believe they may get big return on their investment. People like Collie Tuttle or Mr. Breakstone here, for example, might be quite willing to pay a candidate’s campaign 50 or 100 bucks if that candidate would help push ways of taking lots more of MY money to pay for their admitted character-based mistakes. Posted by: Kristen at February 24, 2008 1:11 AM | Permalink Earth to Michael Brazier who wrote: "I was looking for things McCain did which can be interpreted as services to Iseman, not services Iseman performed for McCain." I guess that the 32 lobbyists who own McCain (including Iseman) are not really expecting anything for all those free rides and the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have given him and the free work that is being done by lobbyists running his campaign, they're just nice guys? And I guess those letters to the FCC that McCain wrote for Paxson and others had nothing at all to do with this; McCain just being a hardworking Senator? Please grow up Mr. Brazier. Mr. Rosen, the story seems to have more legs than you seem to think with ABC reporting on its web site that McCain's blanket denial is untrue and that McCain is on oath in a deposition stating that he had indeed met the lobbyist and her client in person. There are also reports to the effect that McCain pretty much told the FCC to shape up or he would do away with it. Not, Mr. Brazier, that that would have any impact on anyone in the world you apparently live in, nor would anyone in your world apparently consider all of this a quid pro quo. Posted by: fflambeau at February 24, 2008 8:20 AM | Permalink Earth to Michael Brazier #2: Here is the language in the N.Y. Times article in question that alleges the quid pro quo (I guess you missed it Mr. Brazier?): "A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson. In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision. Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron. Mr. McCain’s aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favoritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain’s advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers dispute that. Recalling the Paxson episode in his memoir, Mr. McCain said he was merely trying to push along a slow-moving bureaucracy, but added that he was not surprised by the criticism given his history." Posted by: fflambeau at February 24, 2008 8:37 AM | Permalink Another comment which is an aside. Why would McCain hire the heavy-hitting and expensive mostly criminal lawyer, Bill Bennett, and have him on retainer (as I recall this was reported late last year)? Could it be that McCain realized back then that he was involved up to his neck in Keating 2? Posted by: fflambeau at February 24, 2008 8:43 AM | Permalink What is this, fflambeau, an oppo research dump? Posted by: JM Hanes at February 24, 2008 12:38 PM | Permalink I agree: you're sounding like an operative, so if you aren't one you might consider why you are giving off those vibes. I am working on a follow up that should be posted today or tonight. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 24, 2008 1:22 PM | Permalink Although I think the NYT editors and journalists involved in this story demonstrated poor news judgment and have offered credibility-damaging defenses, it's important to note how different the NYT is from 5 years ago and recognize the credibility-enhancing processes they have put in place.
You deserve it -- and they're really good ! Steve Posted by: Steve Lovelady at February 24, 2008 5:04 PM | Permalink Tim: And yet those processes have done so little to enhance the credibility at stake. When it comes to transparency here, we're talking emperor's new clothes. Posted by: JM Hanes at February 24, 2008 5:55 PM | Permalink Keller's defense is that the affair isn't the story. Okay. If the affair isn't the story, then either the mention of the affair shows unprofessional incompetence at writing and editing (since it distracted so heavily from the point), or the affair was added in as an unprofessional act of tabloid-like gossip-mongering. Which means the only defense Keller is making against attacks on the story is that he was so incompetent as to run an unprofessionally written story on page one. Well, there's only one way the Times can move to restore its credibility then, isn't there? Fire the editor who ran the unprofessionally bad story on page one, and replace him with a competent editor. Right? Posted by: Lunatic at February 24, 2008 6:09 PM | Permalink Ah, the old, "We're not crooks, we're stupid," defense. Guys, guys. That's good once or twice. Not once or twice a month in perpetuity. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 24, 2008 9:06 PM | Permalink With the exception of the affair which, according to the NYT, didn't happen--at least they can't prove it and aren't even, you know, actually saying it happened--the rest of the story is old news in the sense that it happened years ago and was reported years ago. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at February 24, 2008 10:09 PM | Permalink JM Hanes: "When it comes to transparency here, we're talking emperor's new clothes." An amusing analogy and not entirely inaccurate, but it didn't take the innocence of a child to point out the obvious. New post is up: Public Editor to Bill Keller, "You Haven't Got it." Along with a bonus post, Cliff Notes Version of the Q and A with New York Times Readers About the McCain Investigation. They were published at the same time. I am going to close this thread. Head here to comment on new developments. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 25, 2008 9:38 AM | Permalink “Trust us, we’re the New York Times,” That would be bad enough for the Times, even without the fact that they've spent the last ten years talking about what an honest maverick McCain is. For lovers of culture war—and I am not one—there is almost nothing better than a story like this. Posted by: Ralph Phelan at February 25, 2008 9:51 AM | Permalink |
|
Print![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://archive.pressthink.org/nav-commenters.gif)
