Nets Lead w/ NYT Hit on McCain, But Question Journalistic Standards

Photo of Brent Baker.
By Brent Baker | February 22, 2008 - 03:45 ET

All three broadcast network evening newscasts led Thursday night with the New York Times story alleging an improper relationship by John McCain with a female lobbyist, but questions about the journalistic standards of the newspaper were given as much consideration as the allegations against McCain. All three ran a soundbite from Rush Limbaugh denouncing the paper while ABC and CBS featured establishment media observers who castigated the Times for basing a story on the feelings of unnamed sources: Ken Auletta on ABC and Tom Rosenstiel on CBS.

“John McCain began his day answering questions about a story in the New York Times alleging an improper relationship eight years ago with a female lobbyist,” ABC anchor Charles Gibson announced before cautioning: “The story had no evidence the relationship was romantic -- only unnamed sources reportedly claiming they were convinced it might be.” With “Fit to Print?” on screen, Gibson set up a second story on how the Times article “raised as many questions about the paper and what standards of proof it would need to publish such a story as it did about the Senator.” Reporter Dan Harris began: “Today, conservative talk radio hosts accused the New York Times of a supremely cynical slam job.”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Over on CBS, anchor Katie Couric relayed how McCain's “supporters and others are questioning the Times' journalism and motivations.” In the subsequent story, Tom Rosenstiel, of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, suggested: “So this is an odd situation where anonymous sources are not alleging something. They're alleging their feelings about something.” Reporter Nancy Cordes noted how “conservative commentators rushed to his defense. Even Rush Limbaugh took a break from bashing McCain to take on another favored target.”

Later, Bob Schieffer illustrated how out of touch he is with conservatives as he marveled at how “there were some people in the McCain campaign who actually winced when he was endorsed for the Republican nomination by the New York Times. They thought that would set off the Republican right, and, boy, did it ever. It looked like he would never find a way to get those people to warm to him.” But now, “look what happened today. Here's Rush Limbaugh coming to his defense, Laura Ingraham...”

NBC anchor Brian Williams led with the charges and how attention turned to the newspaper's agenda:

It's a story about a female lobbyist in Washington and her relationship, business and perhaps otherwise, with Senator John McCain. It's a story about influence, appearances and propriety. But as this day went on, it was about more than that. It was about the timing and sourcing of a negative story on page one of a very influential newspaper.

Kelly O'Donnell reported that “the Times found itself the target of criticism today. Rush Limbaugh, usually harsh on McCain, was now on his side.”

The Web video clips of Limbaugh played by each newscast:

ABC's World News: “The story is not the story. The story is that this paper endorsed McCain, sat on this story, and now puts it out just prior to McCain wrapping up the nomination.”

CBS Evening News: “The New York Times endorsed that candidate while they sat on this story, and now with utter predictability, they are trying to destroy him.”

NBC Nightly News: “The story is that this paper endorsed McCain, sat on this story, and now puts it out just prior to McCain wrapping up the nomination.”

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide these highlights from the February 21 coverage on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts:

ABC's World News:

CHARLES GIBSON: Good evening. We begin tonight with politics, and another example of how difficult it is for a politician to prove a negative. John McCain began his day answering questions about a story in the New York Times alleging an improper relationship eight years ago with a female lobbyist. The story had no evidence the relationship was romantic -- only unnamed sources reportedly claiming they were convinced it might be. McCain and his advisors knew the story was coming. The candidate reacted with calm. His campaign reacted with fury. Here's our senior political correspondent Jake Tapper.

...

GIBSON: And as Jake mentioned, the New York Times story was the talk of the political world today and raised as many questions about the paper and what standards of proof it would need to publish such a story as it did about the Senator. Indeed, McCain's camp immediately tried to make the New York Times the issue, and not the story itself. Here's ABC's Dan Harris.

DAN HARRIS: Today, conservative talk radio hosts accused the New York Times of a supremely cynical slam job.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: The story is not the story. The story is that this paper endorsed McCain, sat on this story, and now puts it out just prior to McCain wrapping up the nomination.

HARRIS: The Times has been on the story since November, and the paper did endorse McCain in January, saying that he, quote, "demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle." Today, however, the executive editor of the Times, Bill Keller, said in a statement, "We publish stories when they are ready. 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction." According to this story, published today by the New Republic, staffers at the New York Times debated their McCain story intensely. There was a lot of fighting going on behind the scenes?

GABRIEL SHERMAN, The New Republic Magazine: Yeah, I mean, the reporters working on this piece felt passionately that they nailed it to their satisfaction. Bill Keller, the executive editor, felt that they couldn't just run with a piece that had a string of anecdotal evidence.

HARRIS: But many critics, and not just conservatives, say the Times did just that, basing their story on two anonymous former campaign associates who presented no proof of an affair, just concern about the possibility of an affair.

KEN AULETTA, The New Yorker Magazine: That's not proof that he was having an affair with her. And the New York Times, the greatest newspaper in the world, I believe, has to have a higher standard of proof.

HARRIS: The McCain campaign is dealing with this crisis by, quote, "going to war against the New York Times." Critics say the way the Times has handled this story has made McCain's strategy much more likely to succeed. Dan Harris, ABC News, New York.

CBS Evening News:

KATIE COURIC, in opening teaser: Tonight, John McCain versus the New York Times: The Senator denies the paper's suggestion he had an improper relationship with a lobbyist.

JOHN MCCAIN: I'm very disappointed in the article, and it's not true.

COURIC: Supporters accused the Times of a smear campaign.

...

KATIE COURIC: Good evening, everyone. John McCain was savoring what's become a cakewalk to the Republican presidential nomination when a bundle of morning newspapers came crashing down in his path. It was today's New York Times questioning his ethics. But McCain says the front-page story suggesting he had an improper relationship with a lobbyist is not true. And now his supporters and others are questioning the Times' journalism and motivations. Nancy Cordes is covering this still-developing story. Nancy?

...

NANCY CORDES: The head of the Project for Excellence in Journalism says the Gray Lady wandered into a gray area with this one.

TOM ROSENSTIEL, Project for Excellence in Journalism: So this is an odd situation where anonymous sources are not alleging something. They're alleging their feelings about something.

CORDES: New York Times executive editor Bill Keller turned down interview requests today saying in a statement, "We think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, our policy is we publish stories when they are ready." The article was in the works for months but only went to press, the McCain campaign argues, because the left-leaning magazine New Republic was working up its own story about internal debate at the Times over whether to print the sensitive allegations.
...

CORDES: McCain's opponents did their best to avoid the flap today-

MIKE HUCKABEE: I only know him what I know him to be, and that's a good and decent, honorable man.

CORDES: -as conservative commentators rushed to his defense. Even Rush Limbaugh took a break from bashing McCain to take on another favored target.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: The New York Times endorsed that candidate while they sat on this story, and now with utter predictability, they are trying to destroy him.

CORDES: And that's an argument the campaign is hoping it can ride all the way to the bank. Already, Katie, they've put out this fund-raising letter asking donors to help them combat the liberal establishment and the New York Times.

...

COURIC: And meanwhile, Bob, what about this New York Times story about John McCain? Do you think it has legs? And do you think it will trip him up?

BOB SCHIEFFER: I think it has legs, but the legs may be it may become about the New York Times and not about John McCain. You know, Katie, there were some people in the McCain campaign who actually winced when he was endorsed for the Republican nomination by the New York Times. They thought that would set off the Republican right, and, boy, did it ever. It looked like he would never find a way to get those people to warm to him. But look what happened today. Here's Rush Limbaugh coming to his defense, Laura Ingraham. The Christian Broadcasting Network said it is a badge of honor to be attacked by the New York Times. So maybe we're going to see some changes there, and the McCain campaign, as we just heard from Nancy, is trying to do everything they can to take advantage of it. They actually sent out fund-raising letters to conservatives today pointing out you got to help us beat back the liberal media and the New York Times.

COURIC: So now they'll bond over a common enemy.

NBC Nightly News:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Good evening. When it hit the Internet last night and the front page of the New York Times this morning, it was the shot heard 'round the political world. It's a story about a female lobbyist in Washington and her relationship, business and perhaps otherwise, with Senator John McCain. It's a story about influence, appearances and propriety. But as this day went on, it was about more than that. It was about the timing and sourcing of a negative story on page one of a very influential newspaper. Importantly here, the parties involved strongly denied the story. The paper defends the story. And that's where we'll begin tonight, with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, who covers the McCain campaign for us.

...

KELLY O'DONNELL: The Times found itself the target of criticism today. Rush Limbaugh, usually harsh on McCain, was now on his side.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: The story is that this paper endorsed McCain, sat on this story, and now puts it out just prior to McCain wrapping up the nomination.

O'DONNELL: The Times defended both its journalistic methods and the timing of its decision to publish the story. And, Brian, tonight campaign advisors are seeing an opening here. They're very eager to see the focus of attention shift to the newspaper. They've already sent out an e-mail to fund-raisers talking about the controversy about the story and reaction to it, trying to get more support for John McCain.

—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is allot too scripted on McCain

Everything about this has me thinking, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining".
Last time I checked, John McCain was still the same liberal and George Soros hat check boy he was before Sugarcaingate started.

Yet here we have Newsbusters extolling bloggers to write and call the Times in angry confrontation.

Last time I checked, Strangecain was a big bully quite capable of dealing with his own messes.

Yet there appears Hannity and Limbaugh both coming to his defense like they are old buddies.

 

Sure I know Sean and Rush are doing this so they don't get blamed later for McCain's defeat........but come on people, a story about John McCain tooling a woman 30 years younger than him by sources who are not sources. What can the times dream up next? John McCain had a love child with Russ Feingold as he is really a woman?

 

All of this stinks like something which is not right. McCain trotting around grinning with his rather doll looking wife towing along without expression. The Times running a story making no sense and their own media turning on them........and treating McCain like he is their buddy.

As stated, John McCain is still a liberal. I still demand Lynn Cheney for my Conservative vote on that ticket. I will not be led nor manipulated by what looks more and more like the oddest attempt to unify the party behind him..........no not by Republicans, but by the cartel liberals who own McCain so all the children will forget the Judas in our midst as the Times wolf is at the door.

Judas McCain is still a liberal. I repeat I will not be manipulated into following him to the destruction of my Republic. Put Lynn Cheney on the ticket.......and then we will talk about my voting for John McCain.

 

*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS

With respect, I disagree

The story is ridiculous, I agree to that. After all, the essence of the NYTimes story is that John McCain's former aides had to bail him out, because he is oblivious to "appearances." Well, NYTimes, that's astonishingly ironic, since you now see the appearances you find yourself in now! This story has all the appearances of a smear or hit job, and you have the nerve to portray McCain as the oblivious one?

LC, I think you're giving these people way too much credit for cleverness. They're just not that smart.

____

Let me take a minute to reflect on what this says about journalism. These are the among the most elite reporters in the country, and so it's important to see how they work. They exploit the difference between denotation (the literal facts) against the connotation (the suggested meaning) of the report. I'm sure the former associates actually said these things, and I'm sure the reporters have notes. But the question isn't whether these aides said it, the question is what the aides said. The reporters relayed the hearsay, but took no responsibility for it. 

  • In a court of law, you have the right to face your accuser. But in the newspaper business, they hide behind unnamed sources and weasel wording like "former associates." Why is that important? Because between the two, the verdict of the court holds weight. The innuendoes of the media who refuse to abide by fair standards simply carry no weight at all. Because they avoid the standards of fair inquiry, these reporters should be actively disbelieved.
  • These reporters will "bravely" stand behind their assertion that the aides said what they said. But the reporters and editors are cowardly avoiding the question of why they considered the aides' hearsay worth reporting.

Lastly, we hear that the reporters were convinced that they "nailed" the truth of the story, even though their editor didn't think they had sufficient evidence. Like Dan Rather, they were convinced they had the truth, despite the evidence being forged.

  • What does that tell you about "elite" reporting? It means that the reporter begins with his egotistical confidence that he knows the truth. The reporter doesn't really care about the evidence, or the facts, or the actual story. The story is just a vehicle. To a reporter, what matters is his 'Truth.'

KC, one little

KC, one little quibble:
Lastly, we hear that the reporters were convinced that they "nailed" the truth of the story,

They didn't really claim that the "facts" alleged in the story were true. They said their story was true...their story being that former camapaign workers had told them the allegations that they printed.

It's like the "16 words." Bush said that British Intelligence had said.... and everyone translated that to Bush saying it. The Times is saying that these former McCain workers said....XXX.... and that's the truth. Whether what they told the Times is true, is another story.

It's a Clintonian defense, and a shameful tactic.

They obviously just reported what the McCain guy or guys told them....they didn't investigate to see if it was true. If they had, they would be stupid not to present any evidence they had that proved an affair, or favors, or anything else. They are simply reporting what they were told; in other words: gossip.

 

No quibble

That's exactly what I was trying (and apparently failed) to say. They were reporting that this is what the former aides actually said, and I'm sure they have detailed notes that prove that it was said. That's the denotation of the story.

However, the connotation is where they're trying to sneak through. They can't verify what the aides said, but they're not willing to accept McCain's denial. That's where the problem is - their refusal to accept the denial, even though they have no hard proof, and all they have is ten-year old hearsay. There's their bias, right there.

That raises the journalistic question: how do you report an allegation that has no proof behind it? The answer is: you don't report it. But here, the NYTimes decided to dance around that little evidence problem by reporting that the allegations were made, leaving the implications dangling without taking responsibility for them.

Lame Cherry you got it

Lame Cherry you got it wrong here.

Limbaugh cares about the truth not McCain is bad so I can't ever take his side. He doesn't treat this like 3rd grade. He cares about conservatism. He even attacked McCain while attacking the NYTs. He said McCain was stupid for letting the media create him because now he has given them the ability to destroy him too. He also stated that McCain had better not be surprised by this and he was foolish if he was surprised. He agreed with a caller that said that McCain was acting like a hurt lover when he said he was "disappointed" in the NYT. He said that being disappointed was stupid. No true conservative should ever be disappointed when the Times does a hit piece. They should count on it and fire both barrels right back at them.

Limbaugh cares about conservatism not individual candidates. When Bush backs amnesty he calls Bush on it. When Clinton signs NAFTA he praises him for it. Its about principle. Maybe you should listen to limbaugh and know what you are talking about before you criticize him.

Exactly!

Limbaugh has been regularly clarifying Obama and Clinton from media distortions... that doesn't mean he suddenly thinks they're presidential material.

If Hitler says "The sky is blue" and a newspaper calls him a liar, does that mean we should all side with the newspaper and say the sky is green with yellow polka-dots because we wouldn't want to ever defend Hitler about anything?

We've seen this tactic before when Clinton was impeached for suborning perjury, perjury, and witness tampering.  The defense we got from the media was that the prosecutors were "partisans out to get him."  Even if that gross mischaracterization of motives was true, it still has NOTHING to do with the accuracy of the charges.  Still, the media convinced the public they wouldn't want to be on the same side of an issue as "mean people" and therefore Clinton should get off scott-free.

McCain is still a mean S.O.B. and Limbaugh et al sure haven't forgotten their policy disagreements with the man... they've never said he's ALWAYS in the wrong.

My take on the matter....

Rush has continuously stated that if he endorsed
McCain, it would be bad news for McCain because all his independent and liberal supporters would instantly leave. The MSM took the bait and are now trying to
insinuate Rush is on McCain’s side. Rush's (to me anyway) tongue in cheek statement got a rise
out of the media and they are trying to lump all the evil conservative bogymen
together. How this 10-year-old rumor has gotten such prominent coverage is such
a macacca like statement of the real power of destruction the MSM still wields. The
common, uninformed voters are putty in their hands.

Rush did not take McCain's side

Let's face it folks. It makes no difference what anyone on the conservative side says. Most in the media will  say  whatever they want and then try to convince us that some conservative said it. Rush has always said: "The news is not about what has happened, but what they want to happen".

The MSM is just trying to

The MSM is just trying to divert attention away from the Clinton-Hussein feud and the Michelle-pride gaffe and make it appear that the Republican party is in turmoil and leave the aroma of "scandal" in the air.

The MSM... SO laughable... "We're not sure this news was fit to print, but we're gonna talk about it 24/7"... what a joke.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

The MSM is just trying to


The MSM is just trying to divert attention away from the Clinton-Hussein feud and the Michelle-pride gaffe

That may sound like a good reason, but it's not. They printed it because The New Republic was about to run a story about them NOT printing it. Sort of like what happened with Newsweek and the Lewinsky story, when Drudge outed them for having spiked it.

If the MSM is interested in

If the MSM is interested in regaining some semblence of credibility and an audience, for starters they could adopt policies restricting from the front pages or TV teasers any storyline based on "unnamed" or "annonymous" sources. 

If that doesn't work government should require them to place labels (a la cigarette packaging), "This story was based on unnamed sources."

"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"

I'm being redundant but I

I'm being redundant but I can't help it. When is some intrepid pundit going to pick up on the fact that this is a blatantly sexist "news article"??

I am waiting for the Outrage! by the Femi-Nazis. If ever there was an example of blatant chauvinism, this entire NYT article is it! She is one of thousands of lobbyists in Washington, D.C. and her resume shows that she is reasonably accomplished in her craft.

Yet the NYT article presumes - without a shred of evidence - that she used sex with John McCain to prevail in her efforts.

I am waiting for the outpouring of feminist outrage at this mysogynistic newspaper.

 

He who hesitates is last.