Mar
11
John McCain’s Scandal & New York Times
March 11, 2008 | | 1 Comment
by Maggie ZUO Yitong
United States Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, a Vietnam War hero, win the confidence of the voters with his high moral image, almost certain to win the nomination. But “The New York Times” posted on its website a long story about John McCain, a female lobbyist Vicki Iseman, and the relationship–professional and perhaps personal–between the two on February 21st (Wednesday), which is considered to damage his image strongly. McCain’s camp strongly denied the report.
At present, 71-year-old McCain, his heroic image has been deeply accepted by the public. In the Senate, John McCain also urged other members to maintain high moral standards. However, the scandals this time, may greatly damaged his image of justice. However, on this issue, I would like to discuss about the responsibility of media, “New York Times”.
“The New York Times” was criticized because of publishing the article of McCain’s scandal, including the content referred to in the article, the use of anonymous informants and the timing of publishing articles, and so on. However, the Executive Editor Bill Keller of “New York Times” defended its story on McCain in a statement: “On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. In all the uproar, no one has challenged what we actually reported. 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.”
“The New York Times” coverage on the prospective Republican presidential candidate McCain extra-marital affairs and political integrity puzzle, made many people question that the “New York Times” went against the principle of its high standards of reporting. Even the public editor Clark Hoyt, who is responsible for monitoring the quality of news for public affairs news, has come forward to criticize the misleading report of John McCain’s story.
“The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance. The Times did not offer independent proof, like the text messages between Detroit’s mayor and a female aide that The Detroit Free Press disclosed recently, or the photograph of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart’s lap.”
And Clark also pointed that “The pity of it is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising “poor judgment” by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients. Much of that story has been reported over the years, but it was still worth pulling together to help voters in 2008 better understand the John McCain who might be their next president. If The Times could have done the story and left out the allegation about an affair. That would not have reflected the essential truth of why the aides were alarmed. But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.”
Actually, I agree with Clark’s statement that the article in New York Times did not provide enough independent proof to identify the recourses and information. That should not be the standards of New York Times to publish a story like this.
From the point of view of the election, I think this story will not affect the degree of support for McCain, however, it would lead those hesitating conservatives to unite with John McCain’s camp. Although conservatives do not like the unreliable political leaders, but more importantly, they do not like unfair attacks from the liberal media. Obviously after the scandal occurred, most Americans didn’t discuss about McCain’s infidelity, but against the media’s unfair coverage to him. McCain even take the matter to attract the independent voters. People always feel that the McCain always lost his temper and irascible, who is not suitable to be a president. But this time, towards the scandal of the mainstream media attacks, he only said on the television calmly: “Obviously, I am very disappointed about this article, it is untrue.” Such a change, to the contrary, I think this may be a successful strategy plotted by the Republican Party.
(Week Four Post: Negative Coverage)
Comments
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)1 Comment so far
You’re right, it hasn’t affected his support so far. But it might hurt him in the actual presidential election campaign.