New York Times makes allegations against McCain

Req: A, N

“Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers. A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself…”

With those words, the New Yorks Times fired a broadside today at presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain — one that, if it is not proven true, will backfire on the newspaper and journalism as a whole.

The article alleges that McCain had a sexual affair with a 40-year-old lobbyist and that he had written letters supporting that lobbyist’s client. The Times made these allegations indirectly, more through innuendo than outright accusation (it only says aides were worried that something might be going on) and with many more sources anonymous than on the record.

The article appears all the more unusual because the Times recently endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination, despite the fact that it in all likelihood was at least aware of, if not actively working on this story at the time.

The McCain camp has promised it will go to war with the Times over the story, according to

Meanwhile, people are asking whether or not the newspaper had enough facts to go with the story. The answer seems to be “no,” according to media critic Jay Rosen at PressThink:

On the question of “the goods,” when I read the story I expected… more. Any report alleging a damaging affair by a current presidential candidate needs to be air tight and locked down, especially when the events in it date from two election cycles ago. But for this purpose the Times has only anonymous sources; that makes me nervous. While any story like this says to readers, “trust us, we’re the New York Times,” this one puts the Times reputation more completely on the line because there is virtually nothing else for us to trust than the rectitude of the people running the paper.

[Continue reading New York Times Risks]

The story is dramatic and potentially devastating to McCain. Because he is his party’s presumptive nominee for the presidency, the Times absolutely must have its facts straight. And those facts must be unimpeachable. What has been run so far seems more like unsubstantiated gossip. That’s bad for the Times and bad for journalism.

First, the Times has long been the poster child for “liberal media” on the right — a charge that the newspaper’s own public editor agreed had some merit. That should not stop the newspaper from critically covering Republicans. However, it should provide even more reason for the Times to make sure that it covers those stories accurately and fairly.

Second, many on the right have said that the media have been overly favorable in their primary coverage of McCain, whom they see as the least conservative candidate in the Republican field. But they also predicted that the media, who they believe want and will actively push for a liberal Democratic president, would turn on McCain as soon as he became the presumptive nominee.

For example, media critic and former CBS staffer Bernard Goldberg said during a recent appearance on The O’Reilly Factor that although the media liked McCain because he was effective at disparaging conservatives, “as soon as it’s McCain against Obama or Clinton the media goes over to the other side.”

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has been saying the same thing since last year. So have others. For example, Rosslyn Smith wrote earlier this month: “Can a media narrative about a Republican candidate ever have a truly happy ending? Most Republicans doubt it. The biases have been too ingrained for too long.”

We do not know how this story will turn out. The Times may yet produce evidence to prove its claims. For the sake of journalism, especially during a presidential election year, we certainly hope so. On the other hand, this may turn into another high profile “liberal media” debacle like the CBS Memogate story about President George W. Bush.

3 Responses to “New York Times makes allegations against McCain”

  1. 1 Casey February 22, 2008 at 12:38 am

    I think it at least part of the stories should focus on the fact that a possible motive of the NY Times may have been to beat a New Republic article about the fight in the Times newsroom over this story. It does not help people claiming liberal bias if it is found to have released a weak story, to say the least, about a presidential hopeful because a liberal magazine pushed them to release it at the threat of embarrassment. I also heard rumors that there is another story on President Bill Clinton and his infidelity that they are holding on to, similar to the McCain story. So one would have to ask if the rumors of a new Clinton infidelity story are true, why not release these 2 stories together, since it’s not like the McCain story has teeth anyway, and you would avoid, to some degree, the claims of partisanship.

  2. 2 carlcaceres February 25, 2008 at 12:45 am

    If the allegations are untrue, as the article points out, the false story will give journalism a bad name. If the newspaper did not have enough facts to go with the story it should not have been published; it is only logical that McCain will fiercely contest the severe allegations against him. It is suspicious as to why the NY Times would do this after endorsing McCain. The reputation of the Times will be severely tarnished if the story is proved false because the magnitude and consequences of the allegations are so great.

  3. 3 meganwalsh10 March 4, 2008 at 11:11 pm

    This is shocking to me, that such a reputable newspaper like The New York Times would print a story with these allegations. They article does not seem to have well-supported facts, which is just poor journalism, whether you are allegating that a public official had an affair, or are just reporting on the weather. It makes wonder why such an article even got past the editors and into the paper. If these allegations are untrue, the Times’ reputation will be tarnished. It is also suspicious since it is a newspaper with a liberal slant.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

This blog is maintained by Dr. Matthew M. Reavy as a service to journalism students at the University of Scranton.



February 2008
« Jan   Mar »

RSS Jobs from Cyberjournalist

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Jobs from Poynter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Dunder Mifflin

%d bloggers like this: