Calling all bloggers: NYT ready to answer reader questions on its super keen McCain scoop
posted at 10:30 pm on February 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yes, really. Here’s mine: How does it feel to have the credibility of your reporting disparaged by, ahem, the New Republic?
Update: Better yet, via Bill Amos, how about some elaboration on this policy: “We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Are they sure they really want to do that? Do these idiots realize they had some Democrats siding with McCain?
amerpundit on February 21, 2008 at 10:32 PM
I would not give those creeps the time of day, whatever info they glean from this exercise will be used for evil.
bbz123 on February 21, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Not registered so can’t ask. Besides they will only publish the Q&As that work out best for them.
Limerick on February 21, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Some time between now and November …
NYT Headline:
“McCain Eats Kittens!”
If I were a fish and you wrapped me in the NYT I’d be insulted.
Chimp 6 on February 21, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Ya think? “Many of them” were critical? I’d really like to see the comments that praised that Times piece…
JetBoy on February 21, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Ummm..
So are All Professional Women now going to be labeled as whores?
Or, just those that talk or associate with Republicans?
Chakra Hammer on February 21, 2008 at 10:41 PM
NYT=Not fit for bird cage fodder. “Gee, lets publish tabloid shit and national/intel secrets”.
So glad to see their circulation sink like a rock. Another reason not to register. I’m sure they use registrations in their circulation numbers.
chewydog on February 21, 2008 at 10:42 PM
It’s going to be hard to top that one! Bwahaha!
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Don’t be a Female Lobbyist the NT Times will accuse you of being a prostitute.
Chakra Hammer on February 21, 2008 at 10:45 PM
NY Times* even
Chakra Hammer on February 21, 2008 at 10:46 PM
All the innuendo that fit to print
jgapinoy on February 21, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Is Cindy McCain now considered Presidential material? ala Hillary?
roninacreage on February 21, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Exit question: On O’Reilley tonight he claims there is some big dirt on a democrat in washington and “EVERY ONE” knows about but can’t go with it because they can’t get the whole story, what in the heck is he talking about.
KBird on February 21, 2008 at 10:49 PM
The NYT and John McCain’s reputation, 2 things I couldn’t care less about. Let the Maverick fight his own battles. He is the one that decided he wanted the libs in the press to like him so I guess he has created this problem for himself.
echosyst on February 21, 2008 at 10:50 PM
BINGO.
Buy Danish on February 21, 2008 at 10:51 PM
PS – No offense to McCain’s wife, but there is something of the dragon lady look about her. It is really sad our choice for the presidency has boiled down to these 3 morons – pathetic.
echosyst on February 21, 2008 at 10:52 PM
My honest question (would they really should answer) is: why would you endorse McCain if you believed your own story had merit?
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Huh. Good point.
Spirit of 1776 on February 21, 2008 at 10:54 PM
LOL
funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 10:54 PM
The NY Times will bury the retraction deep inside, trying to explain away the enigma of controversy that they have worked so hard to try and create.
And in so doing, they will work hard to keep Barak Obama’s Endless Illision going strong.
Chakra Hammer on February 21, 2008 at 10:55 PM
So, I sent my question in. Let’s see if they have the integrity to answer it directly:
Why would you endorse McCain if you believed your own story had merit? You were working on the story when you made the endorsement. So, is the NYT in the habit of endorsing people they “know” or “believe” has betrayed the public trust and the trust of his family?
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 10:58 PM
NY Times, but it had verisimilitude!
WAHHHHH!!!!!!!!
That doesn’t cut it..
Chakra Hammer on February 21, 2008 at 10:58 PM
Great question. I brought up the female aide that GHW Bush had back in the early 90s, and the press spreading all kinds of stories that they were having an affair because she worked very long hours with him. And you wonder why more sharp young women can’t get a shot at being the top guy’s protege…..which does make it more difficult to become top doggess….I’d say top bitch, but that’s more applicable to the Michelle Obamas of the world.
funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 10:59 PM
William Amos on February 21, 2008 at 11:00 PM
Dude, say what you will about the candidate but how about leaving the spouse out of iut unless she ijects herself into the campaign like some other candidates. All she’s done is stand there and smile.
Big John on February 21, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Oops, hit the submit before preview
Big John on February 21, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Mrs. McCain has raised an enlisted Marine and a Midshipman, so you really should lay off the personal insults.
funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 11:07 PM
I Wonder if Condi Rice has been called out also.. LOL
I don’t look at the liberal blogs, maybe someone could chime in.
Chakra Hammer on February 21, 2008 at 11:09 PM
…and take shots at Michelle Obama (and rightly so).
Let’s not get sanctimonious…
TheBigOldDog on February 21, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Fish “This wrapping is as slippery as us”.
Entelechy on February 21, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Chakra–I’ve seen headlines on the stupid supermarket tabloids over the last couple of years to that effect. I believe The Globe has run George and Laura on the brink of divorce because of Condi stories the most.
funky chicken on February 21, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Here you go.ummm Maverick came out hours after the release of your article and had live q and a. Why is it that the three authors, your washington bureau chief, and your executive editor have gone underground and refuse to appear on ANY news programs or at the very least answer a phone call? Now the Times will become the target of an “investigative report” and BILL “THE ADULTERER” Keller will be out of a job by March.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 21, 2008 at 11:29 PM
“What’s different about this story NOW from December? Or were you pulling Matt Drudge’s chain?”
SouthernGent on February 21, 2008 at 11:40 PM
BTW, I stole the word “verisimilitude” from one of my “web friends” >:}
Just Words…
Chakra Hammer on February 21, 2008 at 11:51 PM
Not to offend Mr. McCain, but I never cared about him before and I’m not about to start now.
TexasBella on February 22, 2008 at 12:13 AM
My question:
Since you endorsed McCain and Clinton, and Obama wins the Dem nomination, will you now be endorsing McCain for President?
Saltysam on February 22, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Saltysam good one.
Here’s my question: Who is this Tony fellow, and why haven’t you published any stories about his connections to Obama?
Rezko defense reveals ‘clout lists’
Document names 40 people allegedly backed for state jobs; lawyers seek to limit use of record at fraud trial
By Jeff Coen | Tribune reporter
2:49 PM CST, February 21, 2008
Lawyers for Antoin “Tony” Rezko on Thursday made public nearly 40 names of people he allegedly recommended for state jobs, arguing that prosecutors should be barred from presenting the evidence at Rezko’s coming trial.
Rezko’s lawyers contended the government plans to offer the list at trial as evidence of Rezko’s involvement in state hiring, but the defense sought to block its introduction because the indictment doesn’t allege he influenced state hiring.
“While the indictment centers on Rezko’s alleged influence over the appointments to, and the activities of, two state boards, it is completely silent as to any allegation relating to the process of hiring state employees,” the defense filing said. “Moreover, the government’s key witness, Stuart Levine, does not provide any evidence of any impropriety in the state hiring process.”
funky chicken on February 22, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Sweet, sweet backlash.
Maybe this is just an attempt to stir up controversy and boost circulation. It won’t work: I’ll just read the roundups and summaries here on HotAir.
joewm315 on February 22, 2008 at 12:52 AM
Never liked McCain, not a great loss on my part.
TexasBella on February 22, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Not a great loss?
What the heck does that mean?
I don’t like him either, but what loss?
Saltysam on February 22, 2008 at 1:08 AM
ditto. I have seen him cry and it gets ugly
On the other hand folk may be misreading the NYT article
.
If I may be so bold to restate the above
The hideous memory of an innocent toe tapper in a public restroom recently mocked and pilloried may be have prick’d the conscience of the editorial board, and set them on a crusade for equality
The facts don’t add up. Those lobbyists are some nasty broads and ug-g-g-ly. No one touches them and lives.
entagor on February 22, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Let me clarify my statement.
I like McCain, just disagree with him ferociously.
And for me, it’s a matter of trust. If he expects my support, he’s got a long hard road ahead of him.
Saltysam on February 22, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Here’s the question I sent in. They’ll NEVER answer it:
JustTruth101 on February 22, 2008 at 1:23 AM
Endorsement schmendorsement. We all know the NYTs doesn’t ever want a Republican to be president.
This story was thinly sourced. It would never have been written had Iseman been male. There is no indication that they had a romantic relationship but for the fact that they are of the opposite sex. The innuendo disgusts me, really.
If they have more, they should put it out there. Heaven knows people do have affairs. But men and women have to be able to work as coequals without everyone getting all sexual about it. The NYT should be ashamed for putting this out there as it is.
MayBee on February 22, 2008 at 1:47 AM
Exactly…
The first question is better..
heck, at least he has an accuser. LOL
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 1:48 AM
Will Obama take that polygraph test? LMAO..
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 1:49 AM
Will Fox News take the same? They’re a hopeless case. I will never forgive them for making McCain their golden boy and bashing Romney.
Instead of Fox and Friends in the morning I turn to the Discovery Channel and it’s a river over a brook type thing, kind of calming.
Screw Fox News.
TexasBella on February 22, 2008 at 3:39 AM
After years of viewer ship, I don’t watch that rag at all. I’m angry if it’s turned on by accident.
TexasBella on February 22, 2008 at 3:49 AM
Don’t know, I’m not huge fan of Fox News, or more specifically Chris Wallace and others on Fox, for not reporting or under reporting and letting the Rudy Hit-Piece story perpetuate, The NY Times buried the retraction on page 35..
The story broke 2 hours before a debate, and Rudy had to answer for the BS charges at 3 debates in a row.
Fox, kept talking these charges up even after they story was debunked.
Chakra Hammer on February 22, 2008 at 4:02 AM
The Storyline:
1 – The New York Times endorsed Hillary and McCain.
2 – McCain has not get yet the full endorsement of Conservatives.
3 – The NYT saw that Hillary lost it.
4 – The NYT dropped Hillary.
5 – The NYT, in support of their other candidate (McCain) and to save face, thought of boosting his approval numbers among Conservatives.
6 – The NYT succeeded in ralling many Conservatives around McCain by publishing a story (true or false, it doesn’t matter).
7 – McCain wins. The New York Times wins. Conservatives got screwed.
End of story.
Indy Conservative on February 22, 2008 at 7:02 AM
The Storyline:
1 – The New York Times endorsed Hillary and McCain.
2 – McCain has not get yet the full endorsement of Conservatives.
3 – The NYT saw that Hillary lost it.
4 – The NYT dropped Hillary.
5 – The NYT, in support of their other candidate (McCain) and to save face, thought of boosting his approval numbers among Conservatives.
6 – The NYT succeeded in ralling many Conservatives around McCain by publishing a story (true or false, it doesn’t matter).
7 – McCain wins. The New York Times wins. Conservatives got the shaft.
End of story.
Indy Conservative on February 22, 2008 at 7:04 AM
oops..will you delete the duplicate post pls, thanks.
Indy Conservative on February 22, 2008 at 7:06 AM
Allahpundit,
HotAir, can’t claim the same policy as your own. Allahpundit supported the sabotage of Fred Thompson both when Jonathan Martin fabricated his own anonymous source and Carl Cameron fabricated the ’sworn to secrecy rumor that everyone knows’, all perpetuated by Allahpundit who presents fabrications as fact.
When you lie to make one case, you lose credibility elsewhere.
maverick muse on February 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Here’s mine:
Flying on a jet with an uncovered female: halaal or haraam?
saint kansas on February 22, 2008 at 10:41 AM
“Why would you endorse McCain if you believed your own story had merit?
I can answer that one for you: Because the Times Editorial Board doesn’t actually read the New York Times. The dissonance between their editorials on Iraq and Michael Gordon’s reporting would make a nice little op-ed piece all on its own.
JM Hanes on February 22, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Comment pages: