The Public Editor Speaks
NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt offers his own sage judgment on the McCain Innuendo. The money quote:
The pity of it is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising “poor judgment” by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients.
Give this man a newspaper to edit.
Advertisement
Comments (4)
I have to laugh at this post. Not sure if you're serious about the editor offer. The laugh part is in regard to "complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman." Is the "complex relationship" with Ms. Iseman one of the Kama Sutra positions?
Come on. This whole story is about sex. If sex, even in the slightest hint that was made in the article - in terms of "appearances" - had not been suggested then it would have been a rehash of old stories. Wow! You mean to tell me that a claimed "goody two shoes" politician actually doesn't always follow his supposed angelic persona. I'm shocked. Tap dancing shocked.
From my "basement in the Bronx" view the only reason this is a story is that the Washington press corps knows the details and is tittering about it right now, waiting for the "other shoe to drop." The right wing's all cannons blasting response is to make sure that the next shoe drop doesn't happen. Anyone that talks on record will have their career destroyed, if not more. Sorta like Obama's "captain."
It's the Valerie Plame situation - déjà vu all over again. Everyone knows the story but no one is talking. So the hints make a canyon mega chorus because of the hidden D.C. chattering class echo chamber.
Shakespeare's thou "doth protest too much" seems more than appropriate in regard to the right wing's response to an old news story.
Bury McCain in his own self-righteous hypocrisy but don't tell me the sex aspect should have been left out. No one would have read the story without it, but then maybe that's what the complaint is about.
February 23, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pity of it is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. Clark Hoyt
I think he's spot on but the managing editor doesn't agree:
I asked Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, if The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. “That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed,” she said.
BS answer if we've ever heard one. She pretty clearly didn't think there was any there there without the sex angle. Why?
Because the media, Washington insiders all, are so corrupted that they barely recognize that business-as-usual is destroying our democracy. Ross Perot? Why, giggle, giggle.
February 23, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sex sells.
February 24, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Without providing facts the NYT has lost credibility and the Gray Lady has a black eye. Even the most amateur college newspaper editor knows that you need proof and a story like this needs to be checked with more than one source. Maybe it's time Keller heads for the retirement road.
February 24, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink