NYT public editor: Okay, you’re right — our McCain story reeked
posted at 1:05 pm on February 24, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
When even the stooge ombudsman says you’ve dropped the ball, you’ve dropped the ball. Keller continues to push the idiotic line that the story wasn’t about sex, it was about the appearance of sex, which was enough to allegedly alarm two disgruntled former McCain aides, which in turn was enough to warrant a NYT bombshell with four reporters on the byline because, after all, John McCain has always been a stickler about appearances of impropriety. Take it away, stooge:
[I]n the absence of a smoking gun, I asked Keller why he decided to run what he had.
“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”
I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. 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.
The stakes are just too big.
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:
It’s the appearance of mud that matters, not the substantiality of the mud.
More slime to come.
If enough accusations are thrown, the mere number of accusations becomes the story, even if baseless.
All people remember is the throwing, not the failure to strike.
It’s clever character assassination politics.
And usually works.
profitsbeard on February 24, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Have fun with your hammer and sickle, Keller . . . but don’t pull this crap again.
rplat on February 24, 2008 at 1:11 PM
OK then, I think that something is going on between Obama and Oprah.
Same reasons huh?
conservnut on February 24, 2008 at 1:15 PM
All the news that’s s–t, we’ll print
RobCon on February 24, 2008 at 1:15 PM
So they weren’t selling the story on visceral sensationalism, but on the appearance of visceral sensationalism? Is that something like a journalistic idea of a striptease?
Spc Steve on February 24, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Leftists accept whatever they read in the NYT as pure fact. They will use these “facts” as ammo until the end of time, no matter how many mea culpas are printed afterward.
stonemeister on February 24, 2008 at 1:17 PM
The New York Slimes… Lying it way to bankruptcy at the speed of light…
doriangrey on February 24, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Nah. Not Oprah. The tabloids already have their fake Obama sex scandal.
Big S on February 24, 2008 at 1:21 PM
I think this is one of those times when the backlash was so strong that the very attempt at character assassination is going to do well for John.
Besides, if it was just the mere ammount of accusations for improper conduct than I’m not even sure why Hillary even considered running.
DeathtotheSwiss on February 24, 2008 at 1:21 PM
It’s ovious that this story is over. It is limping along on a broken leg much like that of the one suffered by McCain in Viet Nam but with a distinct difference.
The NYT “story” has failed whereas McCain has prevailed both times.
McCain 2
NYT 0
Actually a 2+ for McCain if you count integrity…..
Nelsa on February 24, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Look, they ran a front page story by Maureen Dowd repeating the story in Kitty Kelley’s (!!) book that Nancy Reagan was having an affair with Sinatra in the White House.
Front page. No identified sources. White House.
So, who should be surprised with this bit of absurdity.
SteveMG on February 24, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Umm.. he is called a Maverick..
If McCain was worried about his Career..
He wouldn’t have pur his neck out for the Surge in Iraq.
McCain has $0 earmarks, Obama has $91 Million, and Clinton over $300,000 Million
McCain has worked on bipartisan legislation and has formed coalitions with Democrats in the Senate , to the angst of some Republicans..
If he was “Worried or feared that it would ruin his career” he wouldn’t do it..
How can an extremist like Obama or Clinton who never reach across the aisle unite ANYTHING?
Chakra Hammer on February 24, 2008 at 1:25 PM
The possibly inappropriate friendship with the lobbyist was in 1999.
Obama’s last buddyfest with William Ayers in public was in 2002.
Which one is “old news” now?
funky chicken on February 24, 2008 at 1:28 PM
“Best newspaper on the planet” …. Chris Matthews.
It. Must. Be. So.
fogw on February 24, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I went out with a girl last week, and on the very first date, we had the appearance of sex!
Kevin M on February 24, 2008 at 1:34 PM
…So your point is that you don’t have a point.
Slimy? Sure, but you have to admit that it explains a lot about the kind of stories the NYT runs these days.
logis on February 24, 2008 at 1:37 PM
If by explains you mean, the slimes are a bunch of lying weasel commie slime balls than it sure does…
doriangrey on February 24, 2008 at 1:40 PM
[Spc Steve on February 24, 2008 at 1:17 PM]
Yeah, like the striptease of circus clowns who have on 10 layers of clothes.
Dusty on February 24, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I guess it all depends on what the definition of “about” is.
Laura on February 24, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Either Keller’s intellectual dishonesty or his clueless fatuity is remarkable. He seriously believes (or claims to) that the crux of the story is that McCain’s “close aides” — by imputation, all of them — were aware of the (purported) situation and urged McCain to alter his behavior; McCain thus appears to have ignored the concerns of his entire staff.
In fact, the NYT feature relies only on the opinions of just two unnamed “former associates”, “who said they had become disillusioned with the senator”. (When did this “disillusion” happen? Around the time of the supposed “incident”? Or, more recently, when the NYT knocked on the door looking for dirt on McCain? Isn’t that relevant?) (Not to mention their aversion to going on the record.)
This clown shouldn’t be allowed to serve as editor of a high school yearbook, much less a newspaper (ostensibly) by and for adults.
Lee on February 24, 2008 at 1:48 PM
They were not investigating wrong doing, that’s for small time papers written for unsophisticated readers. But they got so sophisticated that even their own readers couldn’t figure out what the point of the story was. Maybe the point is that there is no point. Poor McCain can’t disprove a nonaccusation.
snaggletoothie on February 24, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Man, this guy is just a piece of work huh.
Point of story he doesn’t like: allege that Johnny had affair, not enough evidence, should have had more, not sure if he had a relationship
Point of story he does like: his aides were worried that the affair would ruin his career, he did have that relationship and it was on his aides to stop him
So Keller is saying that there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that Johnny had an affair, but he actually did have an affair.
Wow. They teach this level of creative thinking in wherever the hell this idiot went to school?
I think there is an undercurrent of the coverage of the Bubba years here. Maybe childish payback or something, it would explain the incoherence.
Or that that guy is a drunk. I don’t have proof, but he is a drunk.
A sloppy drunk.
benrand on February 24, 2008 at 2:02 PM
So, where is the accountability? The NYT throws out a story with no proof or evidence in an obvious attempt to sway a presidential election. And then everyone, on the right and even the left, calls them out on it.
So now what? Do they go on their merry little way, off to the next smear piece? I’m thinking so.
I would feel a lot better about McCain if he sued. That’d be sure to keep his name in the papers.
amkun on February 24, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Ooops! Time for a new stooge ombudsman…me thinks.
d1carter on February 24, 2008 at 2:35 PM
What does not kill John McCain only makes him stronger.
drjohn on February 24, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I began practicing Voodoo yesterday, and my first torture doll will be of Keller.
THE CHOSEN ONE on February 24, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Put it out there. Someone will run with it. Doesn’t matter if its true or not, and many lefties have said as much!
Hmm, where have we seen these tactics before?
DMeNTe on February 24, 2008 at 3:21 PM
The irony, or “the pity” of it, as Clark Hoyt notes, is that:
McCain is vulnerable here. Minus the sexual innuendo, we haven’t heard the last of this. Obama’s people will see to it, as well they should. It’s fair game. If you hold yourself out as a pompous, holier-than-thou jackass, others are entitled to inquire whether you are in fact a pompous, holier-than-thou jackass.
paul006 on February 24, 2008 at 3:35 PM
“Thank you my friends, thank you NYT” – - John McCain
Entelechy on February 24, 2008 at 4:09 PM
It’s as Rush always says, “It’s not the nature of the evidence, it’s the seriousness of the charges” that drives these “drive-by media” investigations.
Dilophos on February 24, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Minus the sexual innuendo, we haven’t heard the last of this.
What is the story without the innuendo? It’s business as usual.
TMZ might be more to your liking than hotair.
benrand on February 24, 2008 at 6:01 PM
I wish I could have been a fly on the wall as the folks at the NYTimes discussed their endorsement of McCain for the Republican nomination–
[brief pause, then everybody cracks up]
morganfrost on February 24, 2008 at 6:23 PM
My, my, how short our memories are!
.
Doesn’t anyone remember how the NY Times cooked up a phony-baloney infidelity scandal in 1988 against George H. Bush, when he was running against Dukakis? THE EXACT SAME SLIMY TRICK!.
.
That story too turned out to be so much BS and quickly died, without the Times-intended benefit for the Democratic candidate. Everybody in Washington knew that Bush the Elder and wife Barbara were squeaky clean, practically like Ward and June Cleaver.
.
The leopard can’t change his spots, nor can the skunks at the NY Times change their stench. It’s just a damn shame that so few people remember that and the slimeballs at the Times get away with their perpetual wretchedness.
DavePa on February 24, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Days before the 2004 general election, the NYT ran a page one story on the ‘incompetence’ of the Bush administration failing to secure ‘possible’ WMD’s at the al Qaa Qaa ‘weapons depot’ in Iraq. The story disappeared immediately after the election. BS stories against the Republican nominee is standard operating procedure for the NY Times.
ajackson on February 24, 2008 at 7:51 PM
This is a good response by D’Souza at townhall.com
RealMc on February 25, 2008 at 2:12 PM
“Slimey tricks”? “Libel of Republican candidates”? THE NEW YORK TIMES?? NAW!!!! CAN’T BE!!!!
yawn
jimbo2008 on February 25, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Comment pages: