February 21, 2008: The New York Times and McCain - Wait a Minute!

If I don't miss my guess, the New York Times was working on this story about McCain, his "amour" and the lobbyists, BEFORE it endorsed his candidacy. What does that say about the former "newspaper of record"?

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

What does that say about the former "newspaper of record"?

That wall between news and editorial is a lot stronger than we thought.

Oh, stop laughing. :)

Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at February 21, 2008 4:47 PM

Who's really to blame? Read this:

http://deceiver.com/2008/02/21/quick-which-one-had-an-affair/

Posted by: JK Ribera at February 21, 2008 4:49 PM

What does it say?

That the true story - supposedly the goal of this bastion of impartial journalism - is actually irrelevant to the NYT; what's important is advancing their political agenda. Once you've endangered national security (the NSA leak) and branded returning Iraq and Afghan vets as crazed psycho-killers (i.e.; the REAL threat - unlike the ACTUAL terrorists), where else do you go? Well, when you're the Times and you've hit rock bottom, you simply keep digging. Outright making sh*t up also helps, evidently.

Posted by: Lightnin' Hopkins at February 21, 2008 5:28 PM

The endorsement was along the lines of McCain sucks but not as bad the other Rethuglicans....this is the other shoe.

Posted by: TerryeL at February 21, 2008 5:53 PM

They were clearly working on the story for quite some time. Let's see, there were 4 reporters on a very sloppily crafted story. What can we say to that, but it takes a village...

After spending all this time on the story, they couldn't decide whether it was a sex story or an ethics story, so they simply split the difference. The newspaper of record indeed.

Posted by: Barry Dauphin at February 21, 2008 8:36 PM

I am stunned to learn that apparently a number of reporters insisted that the NY Times publish this pathetically weak "expose." One journalist supposedly even resigned from the newspaper because it hesitated to print the story. This is absolutely crazy. Are these so-called professional reporters totally out of their minds?

Posted by: David Thomson at February 21, 2008 10:55 PM

McCain courted these folks for a long time...all that time Rush has been telling him that it would end badly. It did. I wonder if McCain knew it would end badly but decided to try anyway or if he didn't.

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at February 22, 2008 5:35 AM

They are either as treacherous as a serpent's tooth; or they really have no idea about what to do. Or a little of both.

Posted by: Mikey at February 22, 2008 7:44 AM

And we wonder why the quality of people in public service is so abysmal.

Who in their right mind would want to open up to something like this and have no recourse.

Other profession have peer reviews, some semblance of check and balances, journalism seems to only give itself awards.

BTW I hear Mac is drafting the McCain Iseman Bill, it will make illegal for new journalsit and new pundits to 'break the ice' 30 days before a television appearence ;)

Posted by: Lem at February 22, 2008 8:14 AM

This is the paper of moral beacons such as Pinch Sulzberger and Walter Duranty. We don't need no steenking facts.

Enough said.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive at February 22, 2008 8:17 AM

Safire On Language is the only reason I still buy the Sunday version, off the rack - meaning it's not every sunday.

The day he stops, they will have to pay me to get it.

Posted by: Lem at February 22, 2008 9:52 AM

When I first read it my reaction was 'This is the best they got?" Then I thought about it as I put on my tin foil hat that it almost looks like a faux hit job as it only gives McCain street cred with a circumspect conservative base who hate the NYT and will rally around anyone dumped on by those birds. Maybe the NYT is a silent passenger on the McCain "Truth Express"?

Posted by: gavman_69 at February 22, 2008 11:38 AM

OT

"That's not change you can believe in,.. it's change you can Xerox."

Hillary Clinton poking fun at Obama's proclivity to borrow from other people speaches. In one case a whole stanza.

That was fantabulous.

Posted by: Lem at February 22, 2008 2:56 PM

Email This Post