The New York Times just released another breathless article based on gossip and innuendo concerning a purported relationship Senator McCain had with a lobbyist ten years ago. Besides the fact the story is based on unnamed sources, has no known facts, and is older than dirt, it follows on the heels of The Times’ endorsement of John McCain in the New York presidential primary.
While The Times was working on the story!
What sort of editorial ethics is that?
(Update: The Times' ombudsman agrees The Times should not have run the article)
The Times endorses a Republican for President when they think he’s morally and ethically challenged?
The Times only does that for Democrats.
Mr. McCain, his wife Cindy, and Ms. Iseman flatly deny the story, and The New York Times issued a statement that it stands behind its reporting.
Its reporting?
What did The Times report?
Allegations by unnamed, former campaign staffers that they were concerned about an appearance of impropriety ten years ago?
No stained blue dress?
No taped telephone confessions?
No angry red-faced, finger wagging denial?
The four Times reporters primarily involved with the story aren’t talking.
The Times’ Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet, wrote: “The story speaks for itself.”
Times Reporter David Kirkpatrick said: “I think the story speaks for itself.”
Guess what Times Executive Editor Bill Keller said? Give up? “On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself..”
Trust an Executive Editor to be creative.
According to The New Republic: “The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice.”
One good theory about the timing of releasing the “story” after it spent ten years being rightfully ignored was that it commands more attention to accuse the Republican presidential nominee of hanky panky than just another senator. Those familiar with the scandals of senators like Ted Kennedy, and the Times' editors are very knowledgeable in that regard, know that nothing causes such a convulsive yawn as another allegation of Capital Hill infidelity. If the alleged miscreant is a Democrat, even allegations of impropriety by a presidential nominee or even a sitting president don’t create much buzz.
The improprieties of Democrat senators are legion, and are intensely ignored by the New York Times and main stream media.
That’s why Robert Byrd is still a leading Democrat senator, even with his KKK background and statements on national television that he knows “white niggers.”
Plagiarist Joe Biden was still considered a viable presidential candidate.
“Travel-gate,” “File-gate,” and “Cattle-gate” queen Hillary Clinton was considered a viable presidential candidate up until the moment when she actually tried to get people to vote for her, and people suddenly realized that she was just another undistinguished senator from New York.
Confessed dope smoking, cocaine snorting Barack Obama is still considered a viable presidential candidate, even without amassing any accomplishments except making dreamy and gauzy promises while passing for Black.
Unlike The New York Times “report” about John McCain, every one of these improprieties by Democrats is thoroughly researched and documented.
Obviously not the work of The New York Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment