Gray Lady fighting dirty against McCain campaign? Update: NYT Ethics Policy

posted at 6:30 pm on May 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Does the New York Times leverage access to campaign events through threats of negative news articles? According to one source at the McCain campaign, the answer is yes.

The New York Times has published a series of articles and editorials that have called its objectivity towards John McCain into question. The first shot across the bow came in February, when the paper ran an allegation that McCain had a “romantic” relationship with a lobbyist in a story that turned out to have no evidence except two unnamed, disgruntled campaign workers. A month later, one of their reporters wrote about how McCain’s temper had erupted, only to get embarrassed by a video that clearly showed their reporter to be either insanely sensitive or outright lying. The Gray Lady then ran an analysis of McCain’s foreign policy that declared him a “neocon” because he had meetings with Robert Kagan and Max Boot, among many other people.

But the Times has reserved its strangest shots against McCain regarding his medical records. They began this story in March, in a news article that analyzed McCain’s bout with melanoma. They had doctors speculating on McCain’s prognosis, excusing this because McCain had “yet to make his full medical records or his physicians available to reporters.” However, the rather obvious indicator of not having any more facial surgery never got mentioned as a significant indicator of continuing good health.

This attack mode moved, somewhat more appropriately, to the editorial page earlier this month. On May 4, the Times sharply criticized McCain for not releasing his medical records, even though the campaign told them that they would have the information compiled and ready for release by May 23rd. The editorial mentions this but for some reason doesn’t consider that sufficient, even though the Times endorsed McCain for the GOP primary in February and the general election is five months away.

All of that brings us to today. It’s no secret that the McCain campaign believes the Times to be dishonest in its reporting on the candidate, and they decided not to extend an invitation to the Times for the media pool at the release of the medical records on Friday. According to my source close to the part of the campaign that deals with these issues, they have invited a variety of media outlets, including national-reach newspapers, wire services, and cable-news networks into the pool, but told the Times that they would not receive any credentials for the event.

This prompted a conversation between one Times editor and the campaign staff. Again according to the source, the editor told the campaign that the Times would take a negative view about the release of the records if an invitation was not forthcoming. It was clear that an invitation to the pool would change the nature of the coverage.

That sounds a lot like extortion, doesn’t it? Is that acceptable practice for the American mainstream media? This kind of hostility calls into question their motivation for all of their past articles and stories. Did the McCain campaign do something to annoy the editors in February and March while all of these hit pieces got trotted out?

Newspapers often say that a “wall” exists between the news departments and the editorial board. In this case, it certainly appears that the animus that drives the Times’ editorial stances on McCain has infected the DC political desk.

I contacted the New York Times’ Washington bureau and spoke to their political desk to ask for a reaction or comment. I was asked to e-mail my question to get a response from the paper, which I did at 3:50 pm CT with the understanding that this story would get published this evening. At the time of publication, I had not yet received a response.

Update: As of 10 pm ET, still no response from the Times. Via Dan Spencer and Soren Dayton, though, we have the relevant portion of the NYT’s Ethics Policy:

A2. How We Gather the News

21. We treat news sources fairly and professionally. We do not inquire pointlessly into someone’s personal life. We do not threaten to damage uncooperative sources, nor do we promise favorable coverage in return for cooperation. We do not pay for interviews or unpublished documents: to do so would create an incentive for sources to falsify material and would cast into doubt the genuineness of much that we publish.

Sounds like someone got confused about this.

Update II: Still no response from the Times at 6:30 am ET, 5/22.  I’m bumping this to the Top Picks for a while to see if a little more exposure works.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

The NYTimes is turning against their former buddy McCain now that he’s the nominee?!?

No freakin’ way!!!

Next you’re going to tell me something crazy like “some professional athletes use steroids.” Get outta here.

thirteen28 on May 21, 2008 at 6:39 PM

The NY Times is defensive because they know they are guilty of defending terrorists and exposing secrets to help the democratic party.

That and their plummeting sales has caused the whole lot of them to become parinoid.

William Amos on May 21, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Sharmin and NYT is one in the same.

RobCon on May 21, 2008 at 6:41 PM

Didn’t Bill Clinton refuse to release his medical records back in 1996?

And did the NYT have an issue with it then?

LGwalt on May 21, 2008 at 6:42 PM

The NYT will have a negative slant on the records either way. Good move to tell them to go pound sand.

forest on May 21, 2008 at 6:43 PM

The NYTimes is turning against their former buddy McCain now that he’s the nominee?!?

No freakin’ way!!!

Next you’re going to tell me something crazy like “some professional athletes use steroids.” Get outta here.

thirteen28 on May 21, 2008 at 6:39 PM

Pretty much what I came in to say…

doubleplusundead on May 21, 2008 at 6:44 PM

What’s a little extortion after the SWIFT program leak?

RushBaby on May 21, 2008 at 6:44 PM

Why isn’t every conservative blog shouting this from the rooftops right now?!?

davenp35 on May 21, 2008 at 6:44 PM

Gray Lady? or Grey Lady? Are they interchangable?

3:50 pm CT

Sigh. There you go again.

the Times would take a negative view about the release of the records if an invitation was not forthcoming. It was clear that an invitation to the pool would change the nature of the coverage.

I think it’s alot like our negotiations with Lil’ Kim. No matter what is conceeded, the result with invariably be the same. In this case, negative coverage is a forgone conclusion, and if the McCain campaign cannot see that, well, I just don’t know.

VolMagic on May 21, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Say it ain’t so!

davidk on May 21, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Why isn’t every conservative blog shouting this from the rooftops right now?!?

davenp35 on May 21, 2008 at 6:44 PM

IS the NY Times even worth the effort ? They discredit themselves daily. And with their falling readership better to scorn them and ignore them than flail against them.

William Amos on May 21, 2008 at 6:46 PM

I hate the NYTimes

ctmom on May 21, 2008 at 6:49 PM

Any story about the feud between the NYT and McCain can do nothing but help McCain. If I didn’t know better, I’d begin to think the NYT is actually trying to help him.

forest on May 21, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Nothing like objective journalism.

Invite us to the party or we’ll write nasty articles about you.

No wonder this rag is losing readers and advertisers at such an astonishing rate. The paper is run like a junior high school newsletter.

AZCoyote on May 21, 2008 at 6:54 PM

Ed Morrissey, why only the people involved in punditry and politics care about what a shitpaper like the New York Times has to say about anything in the world?

Who gives a damn about the NYT or any other paper?

Newspapers had their influence on politics more than 30 years ago. Now, they are useful only as toilet paper, if you damp them good.

I wish people stop being hunted by the NYT.

A daily yoga exercise and drinking hot camel urine on an empty stomach can help you relaxing and vision a better life without the annoyances of any newspaper.

Indy Conservative on May 21, 2008 at 7:02 PM

One of McCain’s people should have recorded the conversation so they could play it at a big press conference. Pretty much ruin the Times ability to write about the election.

BadgerHawk on May 21, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Extortion? Not only that, it shows that the NYT’s “shapes” the news not report it.

Topsecretk9 on May 21, 2008 at 7:10 PM

Didn’t Bill Clinton refuse to release his medical records back in 1996?

And did the NYT have an issue with it then?

Don’t forget Senator Kerry’s records he’s been promising for years now…tick tock tick tock…Jonah Goldberg wondered the request forms were 5 feet thick or is Kerry using the worlds largest pen.

Topsecretk9 on May 21, 2008 at 7:13 PM

Given the weak beer they’ve had so far to bitch about McCain, either way the coverage was going to be negative.

I read the NY Times only for the fluff pieces (as the trend articles are so funny — they find real trends 10 years after they pass, and the “avant garde” stuff is just the things the women in Pinch’s social circle have decided to do) and the crossword. Damned fine crossword.

meep on May 21, 2008 at 7:16 PM

Hmm, I thought I had commented.

Anyway, par for the course. Anybody who shapes their opinion based on the NY Times editorial page is an idiot. Anybody who shapes it on their news coverage is just a little deluded.

meep on May 21, 2008 at 7:17 PM

Gray Lady Dirty Whore.

I hear that the NYT used to be a newspaper.

hillbillyjim on May 21, 2008 at 7:18 PM

I hope McCain declares the NYT “persona non grata” for the duration of the campaign.

I was checking on the time’s corporate website to verify something, and discovered that they own about.com. Well, that’s another domain name to go into the host file pointing to no where….

darkpixel on May 21, 2008 at 7:21 PM

Imagine grown-ups in charge of the New York Times.

Shareholders do.

jeff_from_mpls on May 21, 2008 at 7:25 PM

I’ve said it many times before… some candidate is going to decide to hell with this crap and run against the media. He is going to say in effect “What my opponent says or does is irrelevant because the media will protect him from it being disclosed, so I am going to have to defeat the media before I can really run against my opponent.”

That candidate will not only win big for himself, but for his country.

drunyan8315 on May 21, 2008 at 7:32 PM

Very important to report these findings; thanks Ed. If we are to hold the MSM in check, this work must be done! These Liberal critters have had their way with shaping the news to fit their political agenda, for decades upon decades. Due to the invent of the new media, we have the possibility of a “fair & balanced” answer to the old brainwash. Of coarse, the counter balance only works when the Ed’s of the new media are willing to do the research necessary to fact check this scum and then report on the findings.

Good work Ed…

Keemo on May 21, 2008 at 7:36 PM

Thugs.

Darth Executor on May 21, 2008 at 7:37 PM

Thanks, Ed!

petefrt on May 21, 2008 at 7:46 PM

Gray Lady fighting dirty against McCain campaign?

I’m shocked, SHOCKED that the New Sedition Slimes would turn on McCain.

steveegg on May 21, 2008 at 7:48 PM

I think Rush warned them about this in the beginning of the year.

jukin on May 21, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Those of us who viewed McCain with skepticism knew that the NYT was engaged in whatever the opposite of Operation Chaos is called. They and the MSM played McCain up as the only viable candidate so stupid people would hand him the nomination.

Stupid people did as told and the MSM’s work in spiking the GOP is done. Time to start tearing McCain down- some of us knew this day was inevitable. Shame on you stupid people, please stop telling me I need to shut up and vote for McCain because he is so much better than Obama. He isn’t and I know I have you to blame for it.

highhopes on May 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM

Yep, the NYTimes pushed McCain hard and most of us knew exactly what would happen. No surprise except maybe that the NYTimes is still around. Strange the DEMs seem to love such a odious killer of trees but then again they love their private jets and huge mansions while telling us we have to be cold (hot) and hungry in the future to save the world.

Buzzy on May 21, 2008 at 8:42 PM

Don’t hold your breath waiting for a response from the NYT. As Obama would responsed, your question is only a distraction.

GarandFan on May 21, 2008 at 8:42 PM

All the news that’s fit to extort.

jgapinoy on May 21, 2008 at 8:47 PM

In effect, the NYT has no ethics.

chsw

chsw on May 21, 2008 at 10:12 PM

New York once had a great lady
Of late it’s gotten quite shady
Its owner has no pretense
For lefties he’s quite dense
What’s left is but a wady

Entelechy on May 21, 2008 at 10:18 PM

Pay no attention to that silly ethics policy, we got a candidate to get elected.

BadgerHawk on May 21, 2008 at 10:48 PM

You have to remember that a great majority of the people in this country don’t have computers to read political blogs. Then there are the others who do have computers and are not interested in politics. So, these people get their news from newspapers and are therefore un-informed.

cjs1943 on May 21, 2008 at 11:06 PM

I’ve had two melanomas and I can tell you, with great confidence, the the NYT’s questions about McCain’s melanomas were not legit.

Melanoma kills quick. McCain’s surgery must have removed EVERY SINGLE CELL or he would have been dead long ago.

Fer sher.

Pythagoras on May 21, 2008 at 11:27 PM

The wonderful thing about the Times is that so many people at the paper truly believe that either by their selection for employment or by birthright, they are the smartest kids in the room, and the dweebs out in the hinderlands can’t possibly figure out their master manipulations of the political scene towards their preferred candidates.

It’s Pinch Sulzberger & crew as Wile E. Coyote, coming up with repeated new strategies to catch McCain (and before him Bush 43, and before him Reagan…) only to see their plans never quite reach the desired goal.

jon1979 on May 21, 2008 at 11:48 PM

highhopes on May 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM

Yes, Yes, it was all a conspiracy to keep Romney and Fred from the Nomination. It has nothing to do with the fact that Mittens was just not liked by alot of people and Fred didnt wake up until the week before S.C.

Squid Shark on May 22, 2008 at 12:13 AM

On May 4, the Times sharply criticized McCain for not releasing his medical records, even though the campaign told them that they would have the information compiled and ready for release by May 23rd.

The Slimes might be able to exhibit what little credibility they have left if they would have just as strenuously demanded Kerry’s military records.

Considering he has yet to release them, they still have time to demand them.

Maybe in tomorrow’s edition.

91Veteran on May 22, 2008 at 1:26 AM

We do not pay for interviews or unpublished documents: to do so would create an incentive for sources to falsify material and would cast into doubt the genuineness of much that we publish.

It worked for Jayson Blair…

91Veteran on May 22, 2008 at 1:30 AM

Ed, your title should read something like, “Times Extorting McCain?.”

TheBigOldDog on May 22, 2008 at 6:52 AM

“It’s no secret that the McCain campaign believes the Times to be dishonest in its reporting on the candidate..”

It’s no secret that many consider the Times to be dishonest in general with regard to people other than enlightened liberals.

drjohn on May 22, 2008 at 7:22 AM

McCain did the right thing, he wasn’t going to get balanced reporting from the NYT anyway, so why invite them to the party?
Now we will see how “strong” the news media really is. Any smart newspaper would pick up this story and explode with it. Time to bury the Gray Lady, and put her to rest. She belongs on the newsstands with the other tabloids…or at the bottom of a birdcage.

right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 7:30 AM

The trouble in getting accurate news disseminated in other newspapers is that those organs rely on the NYT for the narrative and don’t have the resources to verify or fact check. The NYT has assumed the mantle of Pravda.

onlineanalyst on May 22, 2008 at 7:39 AM

The NYT has assumed the mantle of Pravda.

onlineanalyst on May 22, 2008 at 7:39 AM

Might as well go a step further and label them a branch of Al Jazeera—-this corruption/extortion by the NYT can be compared to the affiliation CNN had with Saddam to continue their aid to the enemy.

Rovin on May 22, 2008 at 8:05 AM

Ha ha ha, the Slimes wouldnt know an ethic if they chocked on it…

doriangrey on May 22, 2008 at 8:18 AM

The New York Times has four investigative reporters led by James Ruttenberg trying to dig up dirt on John McCain. When they could not find proof or a witness of McCain’s alleged affair with a lobbyist, they went with the story anyway. When that didn’t end the McCain campaign as the Times hoped it would, the investigative team keeps digging. The lowest Times article was the Matt Bai hit piece in which Bai claimed that McCain was merely a “prisoner” who sat out the VietNam war. Bai’s theme was that antiIraq war critics like John Kerry and Chuck Hagel understand the folly of US intervention while McCain does not understand the error of using American force. Bai tried to get Bob Kerry to go along with the Bai thesis of McCain not understanding the folly of American foreign policy. Bob Kerry, to his credit, knew what Bai was trying to do to him and would not play Bai’s game.
As for McCain’s bravery under the worst types of torture, Bai had nothing to say. It might spoil Bai’s theme of the bad Americans doing bad things to third world peoples.

Larraby on May 22, 2008 at 8:18 AM

Ed Morrissey, why only the people involved in punditry and politics care about what a shitpaper like the New York Times has to say about anything in the world?

Who gives a damn about the NYT or any other paper? . . .

Indy Conservative on May 21, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Onlineanalyst and Rovin above answer this question: The NY Times (“the paper of record”) still wields enormous influence on other newspapers around the country, and also on the newsrooms of hundreds of TV stations. Most people still get the bulk of their news (if they get any) from TV first, and local papers secondarily. So what the Times says becomes de facto gospel.

If we in the blogosphere, a relatively small coterie of news and political junkies, can keep shining a bright light on this roach-infested kitchen where the NY Times serves up its daily menu, maybe some customers will gradually start looking elsewhere for more fulfilling news and commentary.

MrLynn on May 22, 2008 at 8:22 AM

Also, many people don’t realize this, but the NYT syndicates its content to newspapers all over the nation. Check your local newspaper, and odds are that you will see articles from the Times in it.

Ed Morrissey on May 22, 2008 at 8:26 AM

The Grey Lady and Olbermann
…birds of a feather…

Up close and personal, the NYT targets prey and provides the hit and run road kill for circling buzzards like Olbermann whose antics tear and shred the victim’s personal and professional body parts to gorge.

We know it. They know we know it.

What needs to happen is the balancing act between Constitutional priviledges. If indeed the GOVERNMENT can legislate and judiciate protocol denying Christianity a voice in government and public presence in civics, then the same “balancing” act applies to the voice of the secular free press. Either lift protection from yellow journalism and gag the press from manipulating data in stories based upon anonymous sources or unnamed studies and hold the press absolutely accountable for the ACCURACY of every story printed, or else get the heel of secular intolerant bias off the neck of Christian religious freedom of citizens and civics, or both.

maverick muse on May 22, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Also, many people don’t realize this, but the NYT syndicates its content to newspapers all over the nation. Check your local newspaper, and odds are that you will see articles from the Times in it.

Ed Morrissey on May 22, 2008 at 8:26 AM

A sad but true fact Ed, which only shows how corrupt the MSM has become.

doriangrey on May 22, 2008 at 8:36 AM

Who gives a damn about the NYT or any other paper? . . .

Indy Conservative on May 21, 2008 at 7:02 PM

NYT syndicates its content to newspapers all over the nation. Check your local newspaper, and odds are that you will see articles from the Times in it.

Ed Morrissey on May 22, 2008 at 8:26 AM

Besides filling the front page fodder of nearly every local rag, these are the publications used in all middle school and high school course work, whether teaching social studies, civics, or government.

Although it is either foolish or boring to knowingly or seemingly run into the same persistently predictable wall, until that wall has a hole or passage knocked through it, the battering ram needs muscle power in perpetual motion. The WSJ practices “Chinese water torture” on America and our blogosphere “little Dutch boy” needs a coordinated coalition of responders across the social front.

maverick muse on May 22, 2008 at 8:39 AM

My bad, WSJ NYT

maverick muse on May 22, 2008 at 8:40 AM

From todays NYT’s political online post:

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain is set to release 400 pages of medical records, including documents related to his melanoma surgery in August 2000, to a tightly controlled group of reporters on the Friday before Memorial Day weekend.

The news organizations in the pool, selected by the campaign, include ABC News, The Arizona Republic, The Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, NBC News, Reuters, The Washington Post and, possibly, a newsmagazine.

Perhaps if the New York Times had agreed to talk (view) the information “WITHOUT PRECONDITIONS” they may have been included in this release.

It will be interesting to see how they follow up on their threat to go negative. I’m guessing an AP or a Reuters writer will go ugly enough that the Times can just copy the text while hiding under the covers.

Rovin on May 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM

“French court rejects Al-Dura hoax”

lift protection from yellow journalism and gag the press from manipulating data in stories based upon anonymous sources or unnamed studies and hold the press absolutely accountable for the ACCURACY of every story printed

Refreshing news of journalistic accountability in France.
The problem is global, not selectively ours alone. It is the MSM that promote globalism, and their stories ALL work toward that end.

maverick muse on May 22, 2008 at 8:45 AM

Rovin on May 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM

Well done Rovin… Wonder what it must be like to be a stock holder of the NYT; watching as this dinosaur sinks in the quick sand of corruption and unethical behavior. Liberalism, a mental disorder…

Keemo on May 22, 2008 at 9:05 AM

Verrry Interesting, Ed.

MayBee on May 22, 2008 at 9:30 AM

I feel shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

Lunkinator on May 22, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Good for McCain’s camp for refusing the credentials. They’re going to go negative on him anyway — invitation or no invitation — so make the little leftist bastards sit in their van outside and get the story off Fox News like everyone else. Screw ‘em. And this strategy has the added benefit of allowing the McCain people — every time the NYT does a negative story — to say, “Yeah, they’re all upset that we didn’t invite them to this or that, so they’re stickin’ it to us. It’s sad to watch, isn’t it? A once great paper reduced to the behavior of a petty 7th grader.”

Rational Thought on May 22, 2008 at 9:38 AM

to a tightly controlled group of reporters on the Friday before Memorial Day weekend.

Everyone but the NYT are invited, and the noose gets tighter. No worry, Obama will make sure there is an extra seat on his plane for the NYT.

right2bright on May 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Via Dan Spencer and Soren Dayton, though, we have the relevant portion of the NYT’s Ethics Policy:

Um, that’s the old version from 1991. Here’s the current New York Times Ethics Policy:

.

saint kansas on May 22, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Someone mentioned that not everyone has a computer to read blogs, etc.
I know someone like that. He reads almost every major newspaper in the country – NYtimes,LAtimes, etc….also reads Time mag, Newsweek, etc…..
and guess what?
He isn’t fooled by any of it. He doesn’t need blogs to tell him or show him the depths of it all.
The Media thinks that most people are so dumb that they just eat up what they read. That’s not true.
Thankfully.
The real dumb people (cultish followings for RPaul and Obama) probably don’t read much at all, or know how to read at all.
that’s my opinion. You know you wanted it. :)

bridgetown on May 22, 2008 at 10:09 AM

The Garbage Lady is a lame self-centered paper. Nothing about it exudes excellence. The creators of the paper must be rolling in their graves to see how their paper has become a hack for a political party.

jencab on May 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Wait, the records are being released tomorrow?

Typhonsentra on May 22, 2008 at 10:33 AM

/in his best Capt. Jack Sparrow voice…

Well, they’re really more guidelines, than rules….

Romeo13 on May 22, 2008 at 10:47 AM

Assuming -as you say- that the NYT is read nationwide due to syndication, do you really think it can change people’s mind on any issue?

And if so, do you really think your local newspaper will publish a correction to any story published in the NYT?

The only people who give an importance to papers like the NYT are the liberal and the republican pundits and the politicians.

You can monitor the Times, but if it was me, I would’ve completely ignored it.

The NYT gets it power from you, remember that.

Don’t feed what’s irrelevant.

Indy Conservative on May 22, 2008 at 11:31 AM

bridgetown on May 22, 2008 at 10:09 AM

Your friend is the exception who proves the rule.

I have a friend who claims Mensa membership based on SAT scores from 45 years ago (too cowardly to take the Mensa qualifier itself). This friend (whose political opinions are the complete obverse of mine) gave me a subscription to Newsweek, claiming that it presented the news as fact, unlike blogs. I cancelled the subscription before it ever arrived in my mailbox. Some people may be vocabulary-smart but critical-thinking stupid.

onlineanalyst on May 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Update II: Still no response from the Times at 6:30 am ET, 5/22. I’m bumping this to the Top Picks for a while to see if a little more exposure works.

Gee, I keep popping in here to read that response. Still no email back?

RushBaby on May 22, 2008 at 12:18 PM

Still nothing!

Ed Morrissey on May 22, 2008 at 12:35 PM

Still nothing!

Ed Morrissey on May 22, 2008 at 12:35 PM

RushBaby, check back some time after the House passes a complete farm bill (without omissions). :)

Rovin on May 22, 2008 at 12:46 PM

You were perfectly right to go with the story Ed. After all, you gave the Times plenty of opportunity to respond with their side of the story. I’m sure they fully understand that it’s the rightful and legitimate job of the media to investigate the irregularities of the…. media, and their lack of response is simply because everyone there has either taken early retirement, is looking for a new job, or is busy at work on the Obama campaign.

JiangxiDad on May 22, 2008 at 2:34 PM

I noticed an article from the Washington Post about McCain allowing reporters to view his medical records. My favorite line in the article is at the very beginning:

As Americans kick off the first holiday weekend of the summer Friday, Sen. John McCain will release 400 pages of his medical records to a handpicked group of reporters who can neither photocopy nor keep the documents, illustrating the sensitivity the campaign places on the 71-year-old candidate’s age and health.

Don’t you think that it’s not just the campaign that is saying that the documents are sensitive, but also the government, after all this does fall under the HIPPA Privacy Law?

Torch on May 22, 2008 at 5:27 PM

Torch, that’s the Times, not the Post.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080522/NATION/881355301/1001

Tom_Shipley on May 22, 2008 at 5:46 PM

Yahoo News is out w/ a headline now that claims McCain is slamming BO just because he didn’t serve in the military. When you read the story, of course you see it’s not true.

jgapinoy on May 22, 2008 at 10:36 PM

Tom_Shipley on May 22, 2008 at 5:46 PM

It was a long day yesterday, sorry for my mistake!

Torch on May 23, 2008 at 9:34 AM

You should do a daily “Times watch” story, Ed. This is not something that should be allowed to die. The blog format is perfect for this sort of thing.

I am not a fan of the NY Times, but this goes beyond mere bias. What you have described is completely unethical behavior. If true, people should lose their jobs over this.

blueguitarbob on May 23, 2008 at 10:42 AM