NYT McCain 'scandal' kerfuffle

This seems farfetched, but I'd like people to open their minds a little and consider that the Times endorsed McCain as their Republican choice just a few weeks ago.

Then they go ahead and publish a nonsensical front page story that the National Enquirer would have to think about before assigning it to their 'gossip' section.

SUPPOSEDLY because a political pub was going to publish a 'behind the scenes' article on the turmoil on the article affected the Times editorial staff.
So now, guess what... all the conservatives, some of whom said they'd rather vote for Hillary, are lining up behind McCain,

"Oh no, Br'er Fox... PLEASE dont throw me in that Briar Patch!"

How can I be so cynical? I just find this stuff amazing!

 

What I dont understand -in the 'Briar Patch' scenario- is why the Times would wait until AFTER Romney dropped out.. but before the conventions?

They really arent going to affect anything at all, except to make themselves look like, or else confirm that, they really are idiots.

If I was making the decision to run it or not and knew that TNR was going to publish that quandary piece either way, I'd have said NOT.

Behind the Bombshell in 'The New York Times.'

 

This is Rich! From NewsBusters:

That's exactly the point! If you wave away the 'possible MAYBE A PERCEPTION OF affair' part, and you look at McCain's actions in relation to the lobbyist or other lobbyists, you see that... as Malkin said, using Dorothy Parker's bon mot.. "There's No There, There!"
And when 'there's no there, there'; it AINT JOURNALISM!!!

Who can I quote on this.. oh, yeah:

Jayson Blair, NYT 1998-2003

If that article had been the teaser for a 'Part 2' in which all this was laid out with proof and quotes and shit, that would be a different story. As it is, all that was proved is he hitched a ride on a private jet. EIGHT YEARS BEFORE ABRAMOFF hit the fan.

But it certainly did SOMETHING that makes me think of that Tar Baby:
FoxNews:

And the following paragraphs are EVEN BETTER:

Gimme a Break!!!!

 

I agree 100%, since my guy is {now} McCain

{Does that mean I have to lock and sticky this thread?}

 

At this point, I'll probably write in "Mitt Romney."

There isn't enough difference between McCain and Obama, other than age and experience, to worry about - at least if Obama wins, Romney can come in strong in 4 years.

And no, I'm not concerned about the "McCain slept with the Lobbyist story" - I don't believe it and don't know too many who do.

 

Not even the Democratic campaigner spinners do! Lanny Davis, for one, said it was a ridiculous cheap shot.

And guess who was behind pushing the story! Same guy as wrote much of the Swartzenegger 'Grope-Gate' fiasco for the LA Times, back in '03!

That really worked well, didnt it! So, my cynical mind STILL wonders...

 

My take regarding the timing of this;

The NYT's readership is liberal through and through. In their mind good objective journalism is the constant hard hitting questioning of (republican) authority. And they need to maintain the image with their customers particularly following the Judith Regan saga.

That said the Times had this story and was sitting on it, maybe because they were unsure of it, maybe because it took them this long to get this many pieces in place, maybe because they didn't want to hurt McCain while Romnivore was still in.

Then the New Republic comes along and is going to print a piece about how the Times sat on this “explosive” story. It will probably be very damning, talk about similar past incidents and overall paint a picture that says the Times has lost its backbone, is not a hard hitting paper but a gutless one that cozy’s up with power rather than questions it. The New Republic's readership is small but it would overlap with the Time's and the New Republic would certainly have credibility with the NYT's readership. The "you've sold out" charge by a fellow liberal oriented publication would be damaging for the NYT's image with its core readership but also its own ego. With that in mind they ran the story, and put it on the 1A for good measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


As for the story itself. I don't think it’s a weak as some are making it out to be. It sources "a former campaign adviser" who may or may not be Weaver, a "Senate aide", and then Weaver which it describes as “a former top strategist and now an informal campaign adviser". As it were he was #2 or #3 in the McCain camp so that’s a pretty high level source.

So there’s not a ton of meat there but in my mind enough to the point where you should print it and see if you can as a result come up with more down the road. Had they buried it and headlined it something like, "Former top McCain Campaign Adviser had Concerns Over Personal Relationship with Lobbyist" it would have been fine. Didn't WaterGate start out with a series of simple buried articles like such and snowball from there?