McCain vs. NYT: Truth or "Hit Job"?
The New York Times ran a lengthy article implying that eight years ago John McCain had an “inappropriate relationship” with a female lobbyist. Here is the article:
www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Much discussion is taking place about this article; including criticism of the NYT by even some of the most liberal media sources. Some feel there is more “beef” to come on this story. Others feel the article is just another NYT liberal, journalistic “hit job” on a Republican.
An interesting point: How could the NYT have endorsed John McCain just a few weeks ago with the knowledge of this developing story? Very strange!
Tell us what impact this news story has on your opinion of journalistic professionalism and/or John McCain.
posted by Blog Master @ 8:41 PM
22 Comments:
I'll give them two weeks to see if they can come up with, to use the blogmaster's word any "Beef" on the story.
The article reads like something from a gossip blog—not something you would read as a newspaper article. Could it be that some the Times’ anonymous sources are people who leave comments on the Politically Homeless Blog?????
Read the column twice. Can't seem to find any charges of illegal actions that J. Mc did.
Rush Limbaugh is not one of my favorites. But I agree with his advice to Senator McCain that McCain should learn from this experience that the New York Times are snakes in the grass and can’t be trusted. The same can be said of most all news media.
All these sex and politicians articles are getting mighty boring. I agree with the comment that the article sounds more like gossip than facts.
When will the New York Times investigate and write about Barack Obama's real estate dealings in Chicago?
McCain should kiss the New York Times reporters not criticize them. They have probably helped convert many right wingers to McCain’s side. Couldn’t this have waited until closer to the election? It would have been better for McCain. A few more articles like this one will bring the Republicans out in force!
www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8617.html
P.S.: Forgot to add something. A quote from the Politico Blog: "The New York Times once again has made it very plain for everyone to see they are a political apparatus of the Democratic Party masquerading as a newspaper."
Comments on the McCain article by Thomas Lifson (Editor/Publisher, “American Thinker”):
“The decline and fall of The New York Times accelerates, with today's anonymously-sourced hit piece on John McCain. I will leave to others like Rick Moran and Ed Morrissey the debunking of the story itself. What concerns me is the manner in which the CEO of the organization has jettisoned standards that once would have ruled out publication of such material.
"A fish rots from the head" goes an old Chinese saying. If it is true, as reported, that the story was controversial within the Times, and only ran because the paper feared that The New Republic would publicize the office politics at the Times over publication of the story, then Sulzberger's responsibility is all the greater. His inability to set clear guidelines, hire capable editors, and maintain newsroom harmony and discipline was about to be exposed to the public. To protect his hind quarters, he went with a disastrously bad story.”
Did those reporters train at the Star Blunder?
Good advice from city guy.
Don
(OTOW)
Just what our country needs--another President who can't keep his zipper up.
A “liberal-oriented” defense of the New York Times article about John McCain:
http://www.slate.com/id/2184893/
If The Times truly believes it has a solid factual basis for its assertions against McCain, it should do the right thing and officially withdraw its endorsement of him. If it doesn’t do that, we can probably assume it has a pretty shaky factual foundation for its story. Let’s wait and see what happens.
A better examination of McCain’s ethics and integrity might be exploring one of his loans where he used his eligibility for federal matching campaign funds as collateral for the loan. I’ve seen only one news source mention that loan. Of course that would not be nearly as sensational as what The Times has seemed to manufacture, and would require some real legal investigative work by The Times. Also, it might prove that McCain did nothing wrong. But does that really matter to the press?
He's using the story to get more contributions to his campaign. Good for him!
Two million dollars in the 24 hours after the article.
The story will be old news in a week or so. Much ado about nothing.
Old Johnnie’s wife is hot and he’d have to take at best 1/2 to one Viagra tablet. Look at the gal Johnnie is accused of bonking and it’s obvious he’d need two-pills or more to get him started. No way is Johnnie going to jeopardize his heart, health and political career by overdosing on Viagra to satisfy that lady lobbyist!
Obama 52%
McCain 48%
It's over Republicans!!!!
Pimps--Drug Dealers--Journalists
Birds of a feather.
Why is the Republican Party starting to get behind Sen. McCain in a more cohesive way? Maybe they are echoing what was said about Grover Cleveland when he was nominated for president in 1884:
"We love him most for the enemies he has made."
7:19 p.m.
We must not have seen the same picture of the lady lobbyist. She looks more like a very young version of McCain’s current wife. Not a two-pill+ gal at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home