TNR story on NYT’s McCain scoop finally drops; Update: Lanny Davis, Clinton aide, backs McCain
posted at 1:14 pm on February 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
They got a tip in November, threw four reporters at it, couldn’t substantiate the affair with anything sturdier than hearsay, then dithered about whether to spike it or toss it out there. The compromise solution: Bury it at the end of a long rehash of McCain’s involvement with the Keating Five, to give it some heft by association.
So lame is the story, and so heavy the backlash among conservatives — but not exclusively conservatives — that they probably ended up doing Maverick a favor by running it.
[W]hat’s most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: the new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain’s former staffers to justify the piece–both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves–the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories of 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. At one point, the piece suggestively states: “In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, ‘Why is she always around?’” In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair…
In late December, according to Times sources, Keller told the reporters and the story’s editor, Rebecca Corbett, that he was holding the piece in part because they could not secure documentary proof of the alleged affair beyond anecdotal evidence. Keller felt that given the on-the-record-denials by McCain and Iseman, the reporters needed more than the circumstantial evidence they had assembled to prove the case. The reporters felt they had the goods.
“Why is she always around?” evidently constituting “the goods.” Consider this a variation on “fake but accurate,” where instead of using bogus evidence to support a story you believe to be true, you use possibly bogus evidence to support a story you believe to be possibly true. The product is the same; you’re just weighting the variables slightly differently.
It’s a five-minute read so dig in, pausing occasionally as you go to savor the irony of TNR scolding another publication for not being diligent enough in its fact-checking. Exit question: Who tipped the Times to this in November?
Update: Even TPM is underwhelmed. Although among lefties having Maverick’s back, this takes the cake:
Lanny Davis, a former special adviser to President Clinton and longtime Democratic activist, challenged reports today that Sen. John McCain may have done a favor for a female lobbyist, calling them meritless.
Mr. Davis said the likely Republican presidential nominee did not “yield to a lobbyist” and backed up Mr. McCain’s account that the senator only wrote to the Federal Communication Commission in a routine letter that did not cross the lines of propriety…
Mr. Davis, who emphasized he doesn’t support the Arizona senator’s bid, was also lobbying on the same deal [as Vicky Iseman].
“It is sad and unfortunate that facts are not included to make a fair story and that good journalism rules were not followed,” Mr. Davis said. “I am unhappy. I am sad that McCain’s actions are being described as improper when we went beyond the pale to avoid looking like he was violating an FCC rule.”…
During the Post interview, Mr. Davis reminded the reporter that he had already made a statement to the paper in 2000 which cleared the senator of wrongdoing. The statement was not included in today’s story which paints a damning picture of Mr. McCain’s activities.
The Times never contacted him at all, Mr. Davis said. He said he was troubled by today’s accusations.
Related Posts:
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: « Previous 1 2 3
The other difference is the police and other government agencies don’t typically have cops just walk into the store to buy something. They usually buy in bulk on a contract that goes through the Request For Proposals (RFP) process where the manufacturer or a wholesale distributor provides bids on what they will sell to the agency and for what price.
Besides, if it’s a gun store in a place like NY – he already can’t sell those weapons locally, so he’s not likely to have anything in the store anyway.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 11:24 AM
“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats in the Capitol.
J_Crater on February 25, 2013 at 11:40 AM
I’d bet Romney’s $10k that violent crime rates go UP in the areas where law-abiding citizens’ gun rights are violated.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 11:49 AM
But apparently Obama and his illegitimate NLRB can tell private companies where they may and may not build plants, witness Boeing. Every time somebody says but but but something-or-other can’t happen, I just laugh. Then groan.
Fenris on February 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Evidently, some ammunition companies are also refusing to sell to government – both because of 2d Amendment issues, and because of concerns about the quantity of ammunition some national government organizations are acquiring.
GWB on February 25, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Who’s doing this though?
Can’t find a comprehensive list anywhere. Jazz???
Also, from what I HAVE seen of the list, they’re mostly all small time companies – many I’ve never even heard of. So unless we see some big names join this list – S&W, Remington, Winchester, Colt, etc – I don’t see this causing much impact to the government entities they’re targeting.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 12:17 PM
Perhaps not. However, “the cops” are the “tool” of politician’s and WILL use their guns, without hesitation, to execute these crafted laws.
And by the way, “the cops” don’t function based upon law … they function upon chain-of-command orders.
Carnac on February 25, 2013 at 12:34 PM
I don’t recall which ammunition companies were cited. I seem to recall the information was on a firearms blog/forum. (Which I will never be able to find right now.)
GWB on February 25, 2013 at 12:47 PM
I was hoping if Hot Air is going to post a thread on this topic, they would have a link to an actual comprehensive list somewhere.
I have the same problem with Fox News – way too many articles referring to photos or other things – but they don’t include the relevant photo or even links to it or other items.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM
here you go:
blog 1
blog 2
Fenris on February 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM
.
If you believe LEO’s are Nazi’s willing to follow any order handed down the chain of command, you know nothing about LEO’s.
In my experience, they are MORE tuned in to the failings of politicians than your average person because they live with the “unintended consequences” politicians generate.
Please spare us your OWS, gramatically challenged ““the cops” are the “tool” of politician’s” nonsense.
I have never met a LEO/Mil who wanted to be on the wrong side of 100:1 odds – and 95% of both groups have NO illusions about what it would be likeif some jacka$$ politician ordered them to confiscate legally owned weapons.
PolAgnostic on February 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM
I think it depends on the cops themselves and where they are.
My county sheriff has publicly stated he will NOT enforce any laws that violate the 2nd Amendment. Some of the city cops I’m not so sure about – although most of the cops I’ve known personally would more likely be on our side (us “gun nuts” that is) of this issue.
However, if you look at comments made by some chiefs/sheriffs from places like Baltimore and Chicago, I get the impression they seem to be very willing to run out and start confiscating weapons – from law-abiding citizens – probably not so quick from the gang-bangers who are the actual problem.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM
if the LEO’s don’t like it .. vote the b*stards out that crafted this “law”
conservative tarheel on February 25, 2013 at 2:25 PM
oh and you can add Barrett to the list.
conservative tarheel on February 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Thanks for posting those lists.
However, now that I’ve seen the lists, they confirm my concern that this is mainly an advertising gimmick for the little guys who depend on the pro-gun civilian customer base. Don’t get me wrong – I’m all in favor of it. But I doubt these companies are major sources of weapons and equipment for government agencies – who typically buy in large quantities via RFP. So this will have little to no impact unless the big boys jump in. Until S&W, Remington, Glock, Winchester, and other big manufacturers/distributors get in, it’s kind of a hollow gesture – or perhaps a hollow point (ok – bad pun, couldn’t resist ;) ).
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Not going ot happen with Remington. That’s owned by Cerberus Capital Management, a notoriously left-wing company. They also own Bushmaster, DPMS Firearms, Marlin (owned by Remington),and Advanced Armament Corporation, all of which were organized under the umbrella of Freedom Group, which, last I checked, Cerberus was trying to dump after Sandy Hook. Don’t know if they succeeded, though.
totherightofthem on February 25, 2013 at 3:38 PM
Darn – I should have looked that up before I bought my Marlin .22. I had one back in HS and it was a decent little rifle, and they’re cheap, so I got another for target plinking. I guess I should have paid a bit more and got the Ruger.
dentarthurdent on February 25, 2013 at 3:47 PM
It just means the cops won’t get special deals for being cops
Sounds good to me
Feel sad for the good cops, if a couple years down the road, their bosses are buying them buffoon guns from the ‘bend over’ manufacturers willing to issue Bloomberg approved non hurtful weapons
entagor on February 26, 2013 at 3:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3