Is it obvious to everyone but the Times?
They are so…what?….unprofessional, to be charitable.
Even for the New York Times, today’s article about Sen. John McCain was ridicilous. A smear job, yes, but an embarrassingly obvious one…
accusing him of ethics violations and insinuating that he had an affair with a lobbyist. What is most striking, though, if you actually read the story, is how thin it is. It’s mostly about the Keating Five scandal, which dates to the late 1980s. The “news” that gives the story a hook has to do with McCain’s friendship with a pretty blonde lobbyist that apparently ended in 2000. As for the purported affair, the Times offers zero evidence.
Seriously. As the guys at Powerline point out, McCain legal representative Bob Bennett says now the Times have lowered their standards in this smear.
That is incorrect, of course. The Times is a mouthpiece for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, nothing more. Its smear of McCain–not the last, to be sure–is entirely consistent with the editorial policies it has maintained for many years. [Today’s] story is just one more reminder of why no sophisticated person takes the Times seriously as a news source.
I heard a reporter for The Hill on Fox News this morning say that instead of the effect the Times wanted of making a McCain scandal the blazing news of the day, turns out that the credibility of the New York Times is the story of the day. ‘They led with an allegation they couldn’t back up’ she said, adding ‘It’s hard to stand on this story.’
Especially since, like in The Emperor’s Clothes fable, some folks who see it clearly are speaking up about the Times fall from….relevancy.
We have come to expect this kind of gossip story from The New York Times. It’s not enough to say the paper is biased. The problem at The Times is worse than simple bias. Editors are clearly attempting to drive news and create scandal. In my view, The New York Times is sinking into irrelevancy because of stories like this and if you look at the paper’s shrinking circulation, it appears most Americans agree.
However, one thing they’ve managed to do, that is rather remarkable, is galvanize the conservatives.
And give McCain an emboldened voice against “hit-and-run” tactics, which Obama’s successful campaign proves….people are sick of hearing and seeing.
What you won’t see in the Times is McCain’s rebuttal. Here it is.
What you will see in the Times is more of the same, given their record.
0 Comment
When there is smoke, it’s always good to check out the location of the fire. The Times story shows all the signs of being heavily edited and lawyered. Since the subject was a potential president of the United States, it was necessary to tread very carefully.
I think the fire in this case was a sense inside the beltway that John McCain is very close, perhaps too close to lobbyists. As the article suggested yesterday, close enough to generate rumors of an improper relationship with one in particular. I think what Seanator McCain said yesterday did not ease those concerns. He talked about “friends” instead of lobbyists. Well, lobbyists are incredibly friendly people. They are helpful, knowledgeable, capable, and often the source of campaign contributions. But one should always be careful of the distinction between “friends” and “lobbyists”. Lobbyists are there because they want something. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something to always be aware of. The second disturbing thing was the resort to the language of quid pro quo. I did no favors for my “friends” in exchange for the benefits I received, Senator McCain told us yesterda. Well, smart politicians never do. Only the Duke Cunningham’s of the world are that dumb. Instead, politicians have “relationships”, allow “access”. Nothing specific, but for the lobbyist, that’s enough, that’s more than enough.