The New York Times printed a story this week suggesting that John McCain may have had a romantic relationship with a lobbyist in the late '90s, basing the story on some anonymous sources and one on-the-record former McCain aide.
The New Republic, meanwhile, aims to tell the story behind the story. TNR's piece is also highly critical of the Times: "... 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 peice--both personal and anecdotal elements ususual in the Gray Lady."
(Update: Slate's Jack Shafer defends the Times.)
Says TNR, the four reporters assigned to the story believed it was solid, but higher ups in New York disagreed. Eventually, it was published. TNR seems to think it was published when it was to beat TNR's background piece. The Times claims it was published when it was "ready."
It seems we are not getting the entire story -- neither the one about McCain and the lobbyist nor the one about the story itself.
The McCain camp, meanwhile, is trying to make the story about the Times itself, joining the usual conservative view that the paper is a liberal attack unit. This particular liberal attack unit, it should be noted, endorsed McCain. For president. And while the paper may not be rock solid in this case, the story does raise legitimate questions that go beyond the possible romance.
On a more personal note, when I spend my mornings reading juicy media stories like this, I realize that I need to eventually get back into journalism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment