History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
You do not have to register to participate in this poll for the first two weeks; after that, registration is required. We do ask all readers to abide by our civility guidelines whether they register or not.
To participate in our poll simply drop down to the bottom of this page and click on the word"Comments."
Last night, around dinnertime, The New York Times posted on its website a 3,000-word investigation detailing Senator John McCain's connections to a telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. The controversial piece, written by Washington bureau reporters Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn Thompson, Stephen Labaton, and David Kirkpatrick, and published in this morning's paper, explores the possibility that the Republican presidential candidate may have had an affair with the 40-year-old blond-haired lobbyist for the telecommunications industry while he chaired the Senate Commerce Committee in the late-1990s.
Beyond its revelations, however, what's most remarkable about the article is that it appeared in the paper at all: The new information it reveals focuses on the private matters of the candidate, and relies entirely on the anecdotal evidence of McCain's former staffers to justify the piece--both personal and anecdotal elements unusual in the Gray Lady. The story is filled with awkward journalistic moves--the piece contains a collection of decade-old stories about McCain and Iseman appearing at functions together and concerns voiced by McCain's aides that the Senator shouldn't be seen in public with Iseman--and departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice. At one point, the piece suggestively states:"In 1999 she began showing up so frequently in his offices and at campaign events that staff members took notice. One recalled asking, 'Why is she always around?'" In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair.
NY Times add revenues fell 20% over the last year. The market didn't seem inspired by the McCain article and the perceived lack of objectivity at the NYT.
WmAnderson -
3/3/2008
No
James Draper -
2/28/2008
No!
The story "...departs from the Times' usual authoritative voice." These smear pieces destroyed the Times' "authoritative voice" long ago!
Voter -
2/26/2008
If the documents were forged, as most observers seem to believe, you have not convinced me that they derived from any of the sources you mentioned.
To me, the most courageous thing for a political figure to do in any circumstances involving questions about past actions is to throw open as many existing records as possible. Absent access to relevant records, questions will always linger, one can't dispose of them affirmatively or negatively.
And I also believe candidates must follow an effective communications strategy, one that shows good judgment by getting out in front of a story (rather than living in fear that it will be used as a late hit) and admitting error. That's what I would have done with the drunk driving story. Plenty of people have gone through the experience of being nabbed for drunk driving, the American people are pretty forgiving and understanding(as some other Presidents have learned) so there was no need to be scared of admitting to it.
Also, had I been GWB in 2000, I would have strongly spoken out against and condemned the tactics used in South Carolina against McCain (the spreading of the false story about an illegitimate child.) That's the way to gain credits in the character ledger -- speak out against what is wrong, even it it is done within your party and by people who think they are helping your cause. But that's not the way most politicians do things. The bar generally is set very low -- or has been in the past, I should say.
Lawrence Brooks Hughes -
2/26/2008
#119457 -
What you call "flawed reporting" in "Rathergate" was ATTEMPTED FRAUD, not flawed reporting. The documents were crudely forged, probably by an associate of Mapes or Rather, or maybe by the Kerry campaign, and fed to them. Isn't it strange that to this day, despite their vaunted investigative staff, CBS has not managed to discover the party who forged those documents, or where they came from?
Geprge W. Bush actually volunteered for missions in Vietnam, and was not sent there only because he was qualified in the wrong kind of airplanes. His term in the Texas Air National Guard was six years, and he may have spent more time in uniform than Kerry, who got an early discharge on the basis of his ersatz medals. There was no evidence Bush was ever AWOL from TANG. Besides, anyone who has served a long term in the NG will tell you those dreadfully tedious meetings at the end were something to get excused from if you possibly could, any way at all. Everybody who could manage to get out of them did so.
lane m kimmel -
2/25/2008
Coming from someone who is very much opposed to McCain I can still say that this story was a pathetic smear. Seconding others here, it's almost hilarious how this is something the Times really put in their paper. The timing, the story .. .it's all just so April fools sounding. It feels more like something off a Jr. High myspace blog than an article. Another example of just how little respect the Times should have.
Voter -
2/24/2008
If I were a Republican operative, this is how I would handle the story. I would say "When unsubstantiated stories about Hillary Clinton and Vince Foster circulated after his death, the New York Times did not report them as fact. It was not fair to Mrs. Clinton to do so, and it would have reflected badly on the New York Times had it published stories based on innuendo. So too should it have avoided speculative comments about Sen. McCain in writing a story about lobbyists and their role in Washington."
What's wrong is wrong, whether it affects a Democrat or a Republican. Too often, strategists overlook the fact that large portions of the public believe in fair play. So far, it looks as if Republicans operatives have not taken the approach I suggest. How effective their response is in light of the current zeitgeist remains to be seen.
Voter -
2/24/2008
The NYT's public editor concludes himself in a column this morning that "if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides." That the public editor, Clark Hoyt, works for the NYT did not keep him from taking a hard look at what went wrong with the story. And what elements were unsupported or distracted from the examination of the role of lobbyists. He concludes, as most observers, have that the presentation was flawed.
Your comment is an interesting juxtaposition to what the Public Editor said in print today. You undermine your point by listing stories about one political party, only. That suggests that you may believe that if voters have decided what side they are on, there never is a need for them to look to see if there is fire behind the smoke.
The public editor of the New York Times today quotes a reader who found that the NYT "has sunk below its standards and created a salacious distraction from an otherwise substantive campaign. And for the record, I am an Obama supporter." That woman shows more courage than a person who endlessly ticks off what has gone wrong with one political party, only. Her response is stronger than yours because it is not partisan. Nor is it robotic nor predictable.
There is another danger in focusing solely on flawed reporting, such as Rathergate. That controversy suggested that the best way for a candidate to counter news stories is for his supporters to immunize him from further questions on the matter under review by attacking flawed news reports.
I believe that the best way for a public official to immunize himself is to act with propriety, to show good judgment, and to reveal good character in how he handles questions about his past actions. And not only to act with propriety, but to have an awareness of how others may interpret his actions. That is the best protection.
But no one mentions this. That is because we live in an age where personal responsibilty no longer is valued in the political arena. Every controversy that arises is the fault of someone else. Blame shifting is the norm nowadays. But it is clear that George W. Bush could have avoided Rathergate and what you call the DUI late hit altogether by serving in Vietnam, or himself releasing all records pertinent to his service in the Air National Guard. And by himself admitting the drunk driving conviction. Just as Gary Hart could have avoided the implosion of his campaign by not sitting with Donna Rice on the yacht "Monkey Business." And Ted Kennedy could have avoided the questions about Chappaquidick that sunk his Presidential hopes by handling situation with Mary Jo Kopechne than he did.
Lawrence Brooks Hughes -
2/24/2008
Without stories like this one the GOP would have no chance in the age of McCain-Feingold. Fortunately, the mainstream media has no subtlety--in fact, it is out of control--and will continue revealing its insane bias with items like this, which goes on a long list which includes the ABC Halperin memo of '04, the Rather forgeries, the pathetic attempts to suppress swiftboat stories, the continued silence about excellent developments Iraq, the AP's false report about a Bush crowd laughing at news of Bill Clinton's serious operation, and much more. The Times' final late-hit in '04 was a false story about unguarded ammo dumps.
g w k -
2/23/2008
Smear job - un-named sources.The biggest unanswered question is - the NYT had the story previous to their endorsement of McCain - set up a straw man to tear him down? The NYT has long lost it's credibility except amongst the most fervid f kool-aid drinking beleivers. Jason Blair and Howell Raines' naieve aceptance is on par with CBS/Dan Rather's acceptance of forged documents - the impression left is that liberal agenda trumps real, hard news every time.
-
2/23/2008
Unless there is more background to this story forthcoming I do not think the NYT should have printed it.
Christopher K. Philippo -
2/23/2008
I agree with some of have noted above that the focus should be more on the role of lobbyists with McCain over the alleged affair. I suppose the supposed affair must be counted as news, though one wishes it were more substantiated if they were going to report it, and the idea that most or all of a television news or news commentary program would be devoted to it is sickening.
Andrew J. Grgurich -
2/23/2008
I agree completely
Richard Condon -
2/23/2008
I started to read the article and got bored. We public servants need information that only lobbyists can give us; the government sources tend to exaggerate. We rely on staff to help us understand that we are human and need to set boundaries. Third, the lobbyist was good "arm candy" and makes one feel that they are no longer completely mules. In other words, the NYT article did not contain news,
Mr Punch -
2/23/2008
The NYT should have run a story, but not that story. (Andrew has it about right, I think.) The Times is compiling a terrible record, really, having blown Whitewater, Iraq/WMD, anthrax (well, they did run Jane Smiley's op-ed), etc. I think it's telling that Jason Blair was transferred to national -- American newspapers really are local. If there's a break-in at the Watergate, read the Washington Post; if the World Trade Center is attacked, see the New York Times.
Michael Green -
2/23/2008
The problem with the story is how it is being read. The ties between McCain and lobbyists matter far more than any extramarital dalliance. The story might have been improved in that regard by looking at McCain's marital history, which does no credit to his reputation.
Caroline Hill -
2/23/2008
yes! to the poll. Maybe not with the stress on the putative affair, but his cozy relationships with lobbyists in general is news because he stresses his antagonism to 'special interests' as one of his key talking points.
jessica britt -
2/23/2008
the only mistake the times made was not focusing more immediately on the issue of closeness to lobbyists
that is the story, coming into via a possible romance with one lobbyists was the editorial error
sincerely, Jessica britt
Andrew Ward -
2/23/2008
I think the New Republic has it wrong. The possibility of an extra-marital affair was not the core of the piece, which centered on his exercising undue influence on behalf of his contributors. Whether or not he was having an affair, and I don't care if he did, McCain showed a reckless disregard for the appearance of propriety if not propriety itself by interceding so strenuously on behalf of Iseman's clients. I thought the overriding insight in the Times article was that by acting as if appearances be damned, he may be a victim of his own sense of incorruptibility.
Dennis -
2/23/2008
No. Unless they have something else, it looks just like a smear job. If they do have real evidence, it should have been included in this story. As several news observers have pointed out, the piece just doesn't read well, as if the Times staffers were arguing with themselves in the article. But if the NYT is going to smear a candidate, better to do it now than to wait until the day before the election.
