by Frank James
The New York Time’s story on Sen. John McCain and the lobbyist, hasn’t only pitted conservatives against the New York Times; it also has had journalists in newsrooms, on university campuses and in non-profits devoted to journalism debating the story’s merits and the Times’s handling of it as well.
Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post media critic, captures the arguments on either side in a piece that went up on the Post’s website this afternoon.
Media analysts are divided over the bombshell piece, which relied heavily on unnamed sources. If the Times couldn’t make the case that McCain and Iseman had an intimate relationship — and both have denied it — was it fair to raise the issue? If a crucial allegation was that McCain aides, in 1999 and 2000, told the senator they were worried that the relationship appeared inappropriate and warned Iseman to stay away from their boss, is that worthy of front-page display? If the relevance rests on McCain having written letters to federal regulators nearly a decade ago that would have benefited Iseman’s telecommunications clients, is that less newsworthy because it was reported at the time?
“This is a story that rests on the suspicions, unproven, of unnamed sources,” said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism. “That creates a problem for the New York Times. We’re not in an age of trust-me journalism. . . . What you have is a story that some staffers were worried about something. Their worries could well be unfounded, and we don’t know that.”
But Alex Jones, who runs Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics & Public Policy, called the story “absolutely appropriate. When you run for president, you should have your record scrutinized closely in every respect.” Jones, a former Times reporter, said the paper demonstrated that McCain and Iseman had “a very close relationship. . . . The only thing that seems to be in dispute is whether it was a romantic relationship, and that, frankly, is the least important part of it.”
At another point he has two other journalists expressing antipodal views:
Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum objects to “the transparent thinness of the reporting. If the Times has evidence that McCain had an affair, they should come out with it. If they have evidence that he showed improper favoritism toward a lobbyist, they should come out with that, too. The fact that they do neither — most of the article rehashes old stories — must mean they don’t have anything at all; perhaps they are hoping the blogosphere will produce it. The only ‘evidence’ comes from two anonymous aides who claim they told Iseman to buzz off and stop distracting their boss — behavior which strikes me as quite normal and rather admirable. Sounds like they were doing their job.
“Thanks to lack of evidence, the article reads not like an exposé but like an elaborate and extended piece of insinuation. Surely this must (sic) will damage the New York Times more than John McCain: Who will believe their reporting on him now?”
Slate’s Jack Shafer says the Times piece, while flawed, makes a contribution:
“The story portrays McCain as way too close to lobbyist Iseman and cites unnamed advisers who believe that the relationship was ‘romantic,’ although McCain and Iseman deny that specific allegation. The piece fails for [some] critics because the newspaper does not produce sheets from McCain and Iseman’s enseamed bed to prove their intimacy . . .
“Where there’s smoke, there’s sometimes fire. That the imperfect Times article doesn’t expose a raging blaze isn’t sufficient cause for condemning it. The evidence the paper provides more than adequately establishes that McCain remains a better preacher about ethics, standards, appearances, and special interest conflicts than he is a practitioner, something voters should consider before punching the ballot for him.”
If nothing else the disagreement within journalism puts the lie to the mainstream media monolith painted by critics on the right and left of the political spectrum. The reality is that journalists in the MSM are anything but single-minded.
More Top Picks Kites
There are journalists who are just as alarmed as anyone in the McCain campaign, though not for all the same reasons, that the New York Times went with the story. Then there others who believe running the story was justified.
It has nothing to do with whether said journalists are liberal or conservative in their political tendencies. It’s more about ideas of journalistic ethics, including notions of fairness and the right of the people to know important information about their government officials.
How particular journalists balance those elements dictates where they come down on the Times story.
I happen to be in the camp that believes it’s unfair journalistically for a media organization to plant the thought in readers’ heads that a married man may have had a romantic relationship with a woman based on the suspicions of unnnamed sources.
I would even have problems if the sources were named? What if those sources are wrong? How do you undo the damage? How do you unring the bell?