In the wake of denials by Sen. John McCain of certain claims in The New York Times' bombshell story on his links to a female lobbyist, the paper's Executive Editor Bill Keller released this statement today received by E&P: "On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready.
"'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats.
"This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it." Defenders of McCain have charged that the Times held the story and only released it once he had the GOP nod wrapped up. A McCain aide has claimed that the paper moved after it learned that the New Republic was about to release a story asserting that the paper was debating what to do with the story.
UPDATE: That Gabriel Sherman piece is now up at www.tnr.com. He concludes: "The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn't. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable."
Note: Any newcomers here who may be interested in my new book on Iraq and the media, "So Wrong for So Long," go here:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003711910
14 comments:
The New York Times violated its own policy on anonymous sources in today’s front page article about John McCain. The core of the story was based on two unidentified former staffers who spoke on “the condition of anonymity.” The article only noted that the anonymous ex-staffers claimed to be “disillusioned.”
Bill Keller laid out the NYT policy on anonymous sources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/business/media/14asktheeditors.html?pagewanted=all
“We do all we can to inform the readers about the reliability and motives of the unnamed source.”
Except in this case. We know nothing about why they sought and were given anonymity. We know nothing about their reliability or motives. We do not know whether they were fired, associates of Ann Coulter or Sen. McCain’s political enemies, or otherwise biased..
If the story is not true, then let Mccain sue for Libel...otherwise stop with the non denial denials......I don't like unnamed sources in a story, but a lawsuit will make the NYT put up or shut up....I know it isn't fair for anyone to have to hire an attorney to clear their name, but this is the state of politics in the U.S...stop whining and put the pressure where it belongs....
He can't sue for libel. They only inferred a sexual relationship. This is a shameful story for the New York Times. This wasn't an article with an sort of fact. How can I read it without more questions?
This is a hit job on a Republican politician, from left wing reporters working for a left wing promoting news rag. Nothing more, nothing less.
I am no McCain supporter, but the NYT disgraced itself last night. MSNBC deserves even more scorn, for issuing a "Breaking News" alert, discussing it for 45 minutes straight and continuing to run a "McCain denies rumors of affiar" under McCain's face for the duration.
This is all too much fodder for those who are convinced the media is dominated by liberals. I am starting to wonder myself.
Defending the story by lying doesn't help. Who thinks for one minute that this story didn't reach Keller desk until tuesday. Considering everyone is saying the times has held this for months. Speaks volumes about whats going on at the Times nowadays.
The NYT endorsed McCain while, presumably knowing about this story. Releasing the story now seems a bit silly since McC has the nomination clinched. If this story had any substance the NYT would have sat on it until the Thursday before General Election in November.
It was a well-written, well researched story. Read it. McCain doesn't looked soiled. To me, he looks like someone who learned something from the Keating 5. The inferences to the affair were only reporting that it has been a concern. He denied. It was good reporting - you people just don't like what was reported. Big difference.
NYT is once again abusing their responsibility as free press. It's a shameless hit piece, and they know it. It was obviously edited very carefully so as to not have any specific allegations so that they can avoid a libel suit, which they richly deserve in this case.
Okay, let me get the straight. If it's a democrat running for president, or IN office as the president, his personal life is none of my business, and I am a silly middle-class values voter for caring about it in the first place. Shame on me. But, if it's a republican running for office, even an INNUENDO with unnamed sources is a prime offense and should be reported as very important. How stupid do you think I am?
This is biggest non story of the elction to date.
All the liberal press couldn't say enough good about McCain, until the moment he looked like a sure thing, then the hit. If the NY Times had pictures of Obama and Bin Ladin in bed, they'd be in the shredder.
I think they really overreached..the story is now about the NYT and how awful and biased it's become. Keller sensed that which he issued that truth challenged defemse. The NYT really damged itself today.
Bill Keller should be the last one talking about adulterous behavior. Believe me he is living in a huge glass house himself.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/02/22/bill-kellers-glass-house-adultery
Post a Comment