The Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, is out with a review that ends with a hit on "sex" aspect of the story, which is proving to have legs, so to speak, beyond that angle. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24pubed.html?hp
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Keep after the McCain/corruption story. The Rick Renzi indictment in Arizona should bring out more dirt on McCain's ties to kick-backs and corruption. Renzi was one of McCain's golden boys in Congress
Thank goodness. I am so glad that someone at the NYT is showing some sense! Arguing that it was necessary to include ANONYMOUS SUSPICIONS about a politicians sex life in a story whose ostensible focus is on the role of lobbyists strikes me as the height of mendacity.
Oh, please! The ANONYMOUS SUSPICIONS (to quote and mimic the indignant ockraz) belonged to John McCain's senior staff, not to Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or demons at the Democratic National Committee.
And the reason for the thrust of the story is the senator's staffers were terrifed that the appearance of a romance would lead people to believe McCain was, once again, on the pad.
FYI, 'mendacity' means falsehood. If there was falsehood in the story, neither the public shriekers, nor Boyd, has shown that yet. McCain's denial was what was =not= in the story. In my neck of the woods, we call the straw-man technique.)
I realize any journalistic linking of a politician & sex drives some folks batty, but not everyone is quite so squeamish. Like McCain, we take our lovin' where we find it.
I emphasized that they published ANONYMOUS SUSPICIONS because reputable newspapers: 1) are not supposed to be in the business of publishing rumors about peoples' sex lives- we have TMZ for that & 2) have rules for the use of anonymous sources- which the NYT did not follow in this case.
Why are you mentioning Obama and Hillary? I didn't say anything about them. Are you trying to ascribe some sort of conspiracy theory to me? I'm talking about our best paper failing to meet common standards. Also, I'm not sure who you mean when you refer to Boyd.
By the way, the article does not say that the senior staff had suspicions. The article says that two disillusioned "associates" who were "involved in the campaign" told the NYT that "some of his top advisers" had become "convinced the relationship had become romantic." There is a significant difference.
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I'll take that as an invitation to return your condescension at will. Perhaps I should remind you that 'mendacity' can also mean 'the quality of being given characterized by deception or divergence from absolute truth.'
I was not claiming that the reporters are lying in their article (although who knows about their sources). I was claiming that the paper's statements about the focus of the article were dishonest.
Many people (after the fact) have argued that the reason that the article is worthwhile is that it shows that McCain has closer ties to lobbyists than he would like us to believe, and that he may be doing favors for them. The fact of the matter is, however, that the _only_ new piece of reporting in the article was the sex innuendo.
Anyone claiming that the article was designed merely to point out that McCain sometimes flirts with the appearance of impropriety is in my opinion being disingenuous. When the article is a rehash of old news that leads with innuendo about an affair and it runs on the front page of the NYT, you'd have to be clueless not to realize what the rest of the media will do with it. Are you going to try to tell me that the Times was caught by surprise when ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX all focused on this 'breaking news'?
The story was the affair. It could have been written merely as a senator who was too close to a lobbyist rather than focusing on the romantic angle. The Times chose not to do this. (Others did act more responsibly, but it was too late at that point.) The Times published anonymous innuendo about a public figure's sex life instead. Many non-partisan figures have criticized them for this. (Not that it's any of your business, but I'm not partisan either. I'm an undecided independent.)
Perhaps you'd like to define 'disingenuous' for me now?
4 comments:
Keep after the McCain/corruption story. The Rick Renzi indictment in Arizona should bring out more dirt on McCain's ties to kick-backs and corruption. Renzi was one of McCain's golden boys in Congress
Thank goodness. I am so glad that someone at the NYT is showing some sense! Arguing that it was necessary to include ANONYMOUS SUSPICIONS about a politicians sex life in a story whose ostensible focus is on the role of lobbyists strikes me as the height of mendacity.
Oh, please! The ANONYMOUS SUSPICIONS (to quote and mimic the indignant ockraz) belonged to John McCain's senior staff, not to Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama, or demons at the Democratic National Committee.
And the reason for the thrust of the story is the senator's staffers were terrifed that the appearance of a romance would lead people to believe McCain was, once again, on the pad.
FYI, 'mendacity' means falsehood. If there was falsehood in the story, neither the public shriekers, nor Boyd, has shown that yet. McCain's denial was what was =not= in the story. In my neck of the woods, we call the straw-man technique.)
I realize any journalistic linking of a politician & sex drives some folks batty, but not everyone is quite so squeamish. Like McCain, we take our lovin' where we find it.
Swell comment camorrista.
I emphasized that they published ANONYMOUS SUSPICIONS because reputable newspapers:
1) are not supposed to be in the business of publishing rumors about peoples' sex lives- we have TMZ for that & 2) have rules for the use of anonymous sources- which the NYT did not follow in this case.
Why are you mentioning Obama and Hillary? I didn't say anything about them. Are you trying to ascribe some sort of conspiracy theory to me? I'm talking about our best paper failing to meet common standards. Also, I'm not sure who you mean when you refer to Boyd.
By the way, the article does not say that the senior staff had suspicions. The article says that two disillusioned "associates" who were "involved in the campaign" told the NYT that "some of his top advisers" had become "convinced the relationship had become romantic." There is a significant difference.
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I'll take that as an invitation to return your condescension at will. Perhaps I should remind you that 'mendacity' can also mean 'the quality of being given characterized by deception or divergence from absolute truth.'
I was not claiming that the reporters are lying in their article (although who knows about their sources). I was claiming that the paper's statements about the focus of the article were dishonest.
Many people (after the fact) have argued that the reason that the article is worthwhile is that it shows that McCain has closer ties to lobbyists than he would like us to believe, and that he may be doing favors for them. The fact of the matter is, however, that the _only_ new piece of reporting in the article was the sex innuendo.
Anyone claiming that the article was designed merely to point out that McCain sometimes flirts with the appearance of impropriety is in my opinion being disingenuous. When the article is a rehash of old news that leads with innuendo about an affair and it runs on the front page of the NYT, you'd have to be clueless not to realize what the rest of the media will do with it. Are you going to try to tell me that the Times was caught by surprise when ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX all focused on this 'breaking news'?
The story was the affair. It could have been written merely as a senator who was too close to a lobbyist rather than focusing on the romantic angle. The Times chose not to do this. (Others did act more responsibly, but it was too late at that point.) The Times published anonymous innuendo about a public figure's sex life instead. Many non-partisan figures have criticized them for this. (Not that it's any of your business, but I'm not partisan either. I'm an undecided independent.)
Perhaps you'd like to define 'disingenuous' for me now?
Post a Comment