MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

The New York Times wants to know what you think

• Posted by Beth on February 22nd, 2008 filed in 2008 election, Candidates, General, John McCain, Journalism, Politics   New York Times    

I can think of a few things I’d like to say; how about you?

A recent New York Times article examined a number of decisions by Senator John McCain that raised questions about his judgment over potential conflicts of interest. The article included reporting on Mr. McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee led by Mr. McCain. Since publication of the article, The Times has received over 2,000 comments, many of them criticizing the handling of the article. Editors and reporters who worked on the article will be answering questions on Friday. Please send yours to askthetimes@nytimes.com.

My questions, as sent to the NYT:

1. Why did you apparently disregard what Robert Bennett and Lanny Davis have said about the issues raised in the story? Both refute your story quite soundly, and in particular, Lanny Davis has no dog in that hunt. Robert Bennett, of course, has also repeatedly stated for years that he recommended no action against McCain during the Keating Five scandal, yet you chose to decorate the article with that–presumably, to build your case that Senator McCain is somehow corrupt or crooked. Both Bennett and Davis were obviously available prior to the story running; you certainly didn’t have to wait to see what they had to say until after the story was printed.

2. Why did you run the story without including any response in it from the campaign? Isn’t that Journalism 101? Or was this supposed to be an opinion column?

3. If you have irrefutable proof of some impropriety, why aren’t you using it in your report? Are you holding onto it until October? If you don’t have irrefutable proof, how do you even pretend to have a story here?

4. How on earth could you leave the Times open to all of this harsh criticism for such sloppy “journalism?” Has Bill Keller any objectivity as a journalist? Is it really that hard to see the very serious problems in this story?

5. You were working on this story since what, November? December? Yet you still endorsed Senator McCain. Interesting. I wonder why the Times would endorse a man whom they apparently see as a corrupt philanderer?

6. Finally, I see a clear case of malicious intent. I’m not a lawyer, but I do know the standard for libel is very high with regard to the press. Even with these very high standards and the existing legal precedents, common sense tells me that if Senator McCain were to decide to pursue legal action, he’d have little trouble winning the case. I could be wrong about a projected legal outcome, of course, but to anyone with any objectivity, it certainly looks like libel. Is this really the kind of reputation the New York Times wishes to have? Have you simply given up pretending to be objective, professional journalists?

Want to use or paraphrase my questions in your email? Go for it.