I have several reactions to the New York Times story that has come out this week on an alleged romantic affair between John McCain and a lobbyist in 1999, for whom the senator allegedly intervened in his official duties.
First of all, I don't know if the story is true or not. If it is true, then shame on John McCain-and shame on his judgement if it happened while he was running for president. If McCain was willing to engage in an affair while running for president, then voters need to know that about his judgement. Also, now that he has publicly denied this allegation, he had better be telling the truth. However, I am not yet willing to accept this story.
More importantly, from what we know now (not much), I think the Times acted in an irresponsible manner in printing this story with the amount of detail, corroboration and proof (or lack thereof) that they have released. What do we know from the article? That a couple of (unnamed) sources, previously working for the senator, have told the Times that they had concerns about the relationship between McCain and a female lobbyist. Not that there was definitely a romantic relationship, rather that there was an appearance of impropriety, and the woman had to be warned off from the senator. The Times also reported a letter McCain had written to a regulatory agency (FCC) in connection with a pending decision that affected a client company of the lobbyist. The letter did not request a positive decision for the client, only that a decision should be made one way or another.
That's it.
As things stand now, we don't know who these unnamed sources are, except for one man, former McCain aide John Weaver, who was interviewed by the Times. As far as we know, no one has stated that there was, indeed, an affair. There is no other evidence that there was an affair-no letters, no tapes, no documents-nothing. Mr Weaver, as far as we know, has not claimed that there was indeed an affair.
Right now, this story ranks alongside those produced by supermarket tabloids. If the Times has evidence of an affair and improper intervention by McCain on behalf of the lobbyist, then they have a moral and ethical obligation to print it now. Are they just going to let the story sit out there as it is? If so, then this looks like another Dan Rather Memogate scandal in the making.
Why has the Times gone with this story now just a couple of weeks after they endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination? If they believe this story is true, why would they give their endorsement to McCain as they were about to break this kind of story? Well, we know that both McCain and the woman denied the allegation. We also know that Times editor, Bill Keller, had earlier nixed publication because there wasn't enough corroboration. Plus, we know that Keller was contacted by the New Republic, a liberal journal, wanting to know what the Times was up to regarding the story. The way it looks now, Keller made the decision to go with the story without full corroboration in order to beat the New Republic to the scoop. Is that true, Mr Keller?
To conservatives, this is just another example of how the Times (and the liberal media) is determined to elect Democrats. A conspiracy theorist could very well conclude that the Times endorsed McCain precisely because they knew this story was around the corner and wanted to help nominate a Republican that they could fatally wound. Don't forget that the NYT has become arguably the most far-left paper in the country under the leadership of Arthur Sulzberger and columnists such as Frank Rich and Paul Krugman.
Rush Limbaugh, no supporter of McCain, is taking the line that this serves as a valuable lesson to the senator, who hereto had thought he could reach out to his political opponents among Democrats and the news media.
So now the entire media is all over this story. (Keith Olbermann spent the first 30 minutes of his one-hour show devoted to it.) But what is so telling about the mainstream media is not only what they report, but what they don't report (or underreport). Classic example? Michelle Obama's comments to a Wisconsin crowd in which she said that for the first time in her adult lifetime, she felt proud to be an American. Today, while listening on the radio to Rush Limbaugh, he was talking about how CNN has apparently assigned a reporter to monitor his comments. He then played a tape of CNN's Situation Room. That included an audio clip of Michelle Obama's words in Wisconsin. In that clip, the words..."in my adult lifetime" were edited out of Mrs Obama's speech. Why? In my view, those words make her statement very explicit. To me, there can be only one reason- to mitigate the bad publicity.
Speaking of the Obamas: I was not going to write about this issue, and I will limit my words because I want to write in a responsible manner. There is a video ciculating on the Internet (YouTube), in which a man, who gives his name, makes an allegation of a personal nature against Senator Obama-in which the gentleman said he was personally involved. He also gives dates and places, and offers to take a polygraph, challenging Obama to do the same. Is this claim true? I have no idea; that is why I don't care to go into detail. What I will say about it is this: While it may be a total fabrication (and pending proof, I will consider it thus), this accusation has much more detail - not to mention an identified accuser- than the New York Times article on McCain. Is the NYT investigating this allegation? Will they interview this man? I doubt it.
But back to the McCain story. Again, I make no statement as to the truth or lack thereof. What I am saying is that the Times now has an obligation to spell out publicly what evidence they have. If this is all they have, then they owe McCain and the public an apology and retraction. If this is all they have, then this represents nothing more than cheap, tabloid journalism and a dispicable attempt to influence a presidential election.
"All the News That's Fit to Print"????
No comments:
Post a Comment