Showing posts with label Public Editor Clark Hoyt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Editor Clark Hoyt. Show all posts

Monday, March 24, 2008

The New York Times' War With McCain

Less than two months after the furor over its lobbyist liaison story about him, the Times today features "2 McCain Moments, Rarely Mentioned," his "discussions in 2001 with Democrats about leaving the Republican Party, and his conversations in 2004 with Senator John Kerry about becoming Mr. Kerry’s running mate on the Democratic presidential ticket."

If he feels the Times is hounding him, McCain has cause. The newspaper's own Public Editor joined in the general criticism of the February story, noting that, "although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics--sex--it offered readers no proof."

Today's rehash about McCain's flirtation with the Democrats after being smeared by the Bush machine in 2000 is, to put it mildly, gratuitous. It relies entirely on old material, particularly a story in the Washington paper, The Hill, that appeared on February lst, just before Super Tuesday.

Two weeks ago, a testy exchange about the Kerry overture between McCain and the Times' Elisabeth Bumiller on his campaign plane ended with her asking him, "Can I ask you about your...Why you’re so angry?" McCain didn't answer.

One consolation for the Republican standard bearer is that his right-wing critics, Rush Limbaugh et al, are now rushing to defend him from the "drive-by attacks" of their least favorite newspaper. His campaign couldn't have planned it better.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

All the News That's Fit to Hint

You can hear the crackle of eggshells as the Public Editor of the New York Times walks through the wreckage of the paper's story about John McCain last Thursday.

In today's column, Clark Hoyt quotes the morning-after justifying by Executive Editor Bill Keller of a report on a "fighter against corruption" who has been “careless about appearances, careless about his reputation, and that’s a pretty important thing to know about somebody who wants to be president of the United States.”

Perhaps so, but Keller's characterization can be applied just as well to a newspaper that has been and still wants to be the journalistic conscience of the United States.

In defending his reporters, Keller downgraded McCain's "ties" to a younger woman lobbyist to an "association," but they offered proof of little more than an acquaintance that led staff members to worry that it might look like more. About that, the newspaper of record's own conscience concludes that "if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."

Amid all the leering, what has been lost is the point about McCain's iffy relationships with lobbyists over the years.

"The pity of it," Hoyt writes today "is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising 'poor judgment' by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients."

McCain's defense that he was only trying to expedite rather than influence that decision won't wash in a wink-and-a-nod town where any kind of intervention with a regulatory commission by a powerful Senator sends a clear message.

The Times' main error may have been not to publish its story about that, minus the gossip, as opinion rather than news in "a series of articles about the life and careers of contenders for the 2008 Republican and Democratic presidential nominations."