New York Times Death Spiral Watch

Outsourced to Matthew Yglewias:

A Real Story (Politics): Mark Kleiman points out that the AP's version of the of the [John McCain-]Vicky Iseman story has less [sexual] innuendo, but a clearer explanation of actual misconduct.... Basically, in exchange for money and freebies, McCain sought to intervene in a federal regulatory process in favor of a company that had provided him with tens of thousands of dollars in cash and services.... Now whether or not some guy gets to buy some TV station in Pittsburgh or not isn't a big deal as such, but it's an example of how dubious McCain's "straight talk" persona is. What's more, I think we can all agree that the subversion of the basic functioning of the federal government (see, e.g., US Attorneys scandal, FEMA, etc.) has been a major problem during the Bush years and we see here that McCain takes a Bush-like attitude to the integrity of these processes.

UPDATE: NB, thinking more clearly past my loathing of John McCain, the Times's effort to substitute [sexual] innuendo for making a straightforward true or false assertion is seems like a pretty shameful attempt to set up a Kaus-like presumption of guilt. If they have reporting they're willing to stand behind of a McCain-Iseman affair, they should publish it. And if, as seems to be the case, they don't have the reporting, then they shouldn't write the story.

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Comments

[Cal]

Go to lessig08.org and get involved.

[anonymous]

Its not the sexual part that should alarm voters, but the fact that someone who has built a campaign and career out of lobby reform might have mud on his face concerning that exact issue.
Anyone remember the Keating Five?

[Rob]

Yep the Times had a story about the reformer McCain basically using his Chairmanship to pressure the FCC for a lobbyist he was accepting large favors from. They wanted the sex angle instead. Why? Hey does anyone know the names who broke the Ted Stevens story? At the same time Drudge is an empire.

[Neil B.]

I agree the NYT shouldn't put forth the issue of a literal sexual affair by innuendo if they can help it, but vague reports is maybe all they can get. In any case, one interesting hypocrisy and tactic of the rightist commentators like Hannity is what I heard this afternoon: Call a story like this from NYT "a smear" with presumption it isn't true. Well, maybe it's true and maybe not (and somewhere in between?), but in any case it is a smear against the presenters to assert that a report is a smear if you don't know it is false. (That's right, you do have to prove a negative to assert a definite consequence of a negative, versus just being skeptical.) Making Brad's type criticisms doesn't fall into that because those are "structural" criticisms about how to rightly word things, etc.

[Charles]

Brad asks, "Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?"

Answer: Because people still buy what they write.

This has been another edition of simple answers to complex questions.

[kusaka]

The reason NYT gave the story a sexual angle was because otherwise it might actually serve to boost his "conservative credentials". Nobody wants Mr.Clean but corruption and hypocrisy? Thats our boy!

[Movie Guy]

Matthew Yglewias - "Now whether or not some guy gets to buy some TV station in Pittsburgh or not isn't a big deal as such..."

That sounds like something the Bush people would say.

I beg to differ.

[r flanagan]

McCain's affairs , if any, are a personal matter between him and his wife and not a proper subject for journalism.

His letter to the FCC asking it to act on a long delayed application
by the lobbyist's client was clearly a favor to her. But favors per se are not unethical , particularly if it is in the form of a legitimate request as was true in this case.It's reasonable for Congress to express dissatifaction with delays in the peformance by regulatory bodies.

Seems like an another example of the Jeff Gerth school of Times
reporting.

I hope HRC and Obama just stay away from the issue. When Harold Wilson was asked about the Profumo Sex/Security scandal he answered

"No comment"......" In technicolor". Seemed about right.

[corvid]

But AP wouldn't have done their story if the NYT had done its version. I didn't see the AP, but the NYT story--besides having the sexual innuendo--is absolutely chock full of the despicable McCain's cozying up to lobbyists again and again and again and includes nice helpful mentions of the Keating Five--for which, incidentally, he should be doing hard time even now.
.
Here you have a genuine war hero who--apparently not unlike Duke Cunningham--trades on that background to advance a pretty slimy little agenda in public life. I can't conceive of much that's lower than that.
.
And by the way, the innuendo is perfectly relevant, I think. Here's a married man escorting a young, attractive woman other than his wife. And the woman is a fairly constant presence in his campaign and offices. For those far more enlightened, advanced and evolved than I am, I suppose this means nothing. But for a good-sized segment of Republicans who are being herded into voting for this popinjay, marriage still means something and one's public behavior as a spouse--quite apart from whether or not any bedroom time is involved--counts, and counts big-time.
.
So it's not a sexual witch hunt. If McCain is seen publicly with this woman again and again, he's personally handing over brimming barrels of mud to any media organizations that have the balls to report it, as they should. Period.

[Emma Anne]

I would much rather live in a world where we didn't poke around into politicians' sex lives. Lucky people who didn't have to know the lurid details about Eisenhower or Kennedy.

But what I *really* dislike is the system we have now, where every seamy detail about a Democrat requires months of discussion on political shows and in the NYT and Newsweek, but similar details about Republicans receive a brief flurry of attention for a few days and are never brought up again. Whatever the system is, it should treat Dems and Repubs the same. Until we have some kind of parity in the media, we'll always be fighting at a severe disadvantage.

[PaulC]

"But for a good-sized segment of Republicans who are being herded into voting for this popinjay, marriage still means something and one's public behavior as a spouse"

I thought that line had already been crossed by Dubya and Condi--the woman who mistook the president for her husband.

[Neal]

By virtue of this being the story published after MONTHS of haggling between NYT and McCain legal teams (including Mr. Bennett--the ever reliable scandal heavy hitter for politicians), those sentences which are included in the story are legally provable.

The substance of the story is the line where McCain acknowledged an "inappropriate relationship" to his subordinates.

It serves McCains interest to leave the phrase vague in relation to sexual or political meaning. In fact, the sexual meaning places the contoversy off-limits to Clinton and Democrats by extension. The political meaning says to Republican corporate interests that McCain can be dealt with.

[Denis Drew]

Johnny, we hardly knew ye? You mean McCain has something in common with JFK too -- if not too much?

[Altoid]

I'll agree with Emma Anne and raise her one. What really gets *me* about this story is that for months apparently everybody in the DC press corps, and the family dog, has known for months (at least) about the sainted McCain and this lobbyist, and McCain and lobbyists in general, and hasn't hinted a damn word to anyone in the public over all this time. Oh, they can't report gossip and rumors, they say? Then why spend any time dishing among themselves? Digby and Atrios are so right about those people.

I think Neal's right about the form of this story-- thanks to Bill Bennett, nothing's in it that can't be absolutely proven or considered acceptably vague.

Why the vague tone? The few times I've seen Bill Keller I've been unable to decide whether he's really naive or just likes to seem that way. Certainly he's incapable of explaining his news judgment in ways that make sense to most people and he tends to resort to vague cliches. But he must be ferocious in the office political game.

[prostratedragon]

Seems to me the sexual, or "romantic," innuendo was introduced into the TImes story as McCain's staffers were trying to figure out *why in the world* Ms. Iseman was always underfoot. I took it that since they knew she was a lobbyist, they were almost hoping for the other angle when they approached the Senator.

Since in the same article it is noted that McCain accepted a ride in from her in a client's jet to make a fundraiser (and it has been found out that this ride was not reported properly), that, and the contrast to his claims as a reformer, would seem to have been a better setting for the article, but still based on what is there I think they did have a story.

[piotr]

The facts are that (a) the innuendo was carefully worded, (b) it drew attention to actual dubious conduct, (c) it was presented in a manner that, well, sells.

Point (c) clearly answers that it was economically a sound decision to present the story in this manner. Now, the country is abuzz with the talk about "NYT story". Point (b) adresseses the "public service" angle.

Now, if only the intricacies of political struggles on topics like content of important regulations, tax policy etc. could be presented with salacious innuendos drawing public attention to most salient details...

[Alphonse]

Vicky Iseman is an very accomplished, intelligent, and quite attractive woman. I certainly wouldn't vote for any man who had a chance with that babe and passed it up! Might get another wacko wimp like the current pres.

In all seriousness, this witch hunt into people's private sexual behavior is beyond any tolerable standard. The American people just can't endure more of this crap.

[piotr]

Shorter Alphonse: vote for McCain, virile as recently as 10 years ago!

By the way, what were the accomplishments of Vicky Iseman? I understand that they consisted of convincing politicians to meet clients of her boss. We are talking about susceptibility to blandishments and corporate donations to campaign funds. And I understand that these blandishments did not have the form of Power Point presentations (well, I hate Power Point, but a college professor must put some limits on the premium given to sex appeal when one issues grades etc.)