Is the New York Times attack on John McCain causing conservatives to start supporting the likely GOP nominee or is this more of an anti-Times thing than anything else?
NewsBusters executive editor Matthew Sheffield is among those discussing the topic in today's edition of the Times:
Operating on the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, many conservatives who had long distrusted Mr. McCain on a variety of issues, including his peculiar fondness for talking to reporters for hours on end, rallied to see him at war with a newspaper they revile as a voice of the left. (In fact, Mr. McCain said only that he was “disappointed” with the newspaper, and left the incendiary attacks to his [campaign] surrogates.) [...]
Story Continues Below Ad ↓By Friday, the campaign was tracing its jump in fund-raising directly to the article in The Times. “Thank you,” Mr. Schmidt said to a Times reporter on Mr. McCain’s campaign plane as it headed back to Washington from Indianapolis. Then he added to a group of reporters, “There was a lot of outrage across the country on the story, and the campaign has raised a lot of money in the last 24 hours.”
Even those conservatives who did not rush to embrace Mr. McCain said his campaign’s condemnations of The Times might have given him an indirect boost, although some were not yet ready to support Mr. McCain’s campaign.
“I wouldn’t say that this has turned the tables as far as McCain convincing the base to vote for him,” Matthew Sheffield, the executive editor of the conservative media-watchdog site NewsBusters, wrote to a Times reporter in an e-mail message. “However, this was a terrific opportunity to get that dialogue started. The general sentiment seems to be more of a defense of McCain against an unfair attack rather than a positive reaction to his candidacy.”
The White House got into the act on Friday morning when Scott M. Stanzel, a deputy press secretary, responded to a question about whether President Bush supported Mr. McCain by attacking the newspaper instead.
“I think a lot of people here in this building with experience in a couple campaigns have grown accustomed to the fact that during the course of a campaign, seemingly on maybe a monthly basis leading up to the convention, maybe a weekly basis after that, The New York Times does try to drop a bombshell on the Republican nominee,” Mr. Stanzel replied. “And that is something that the Republican nominee has faced in the past, and probably will face in this campaign.”
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I'll say it again.
February 23, 2008 - 11:06 ET by sarcasmoThe sex part is unsubstantiated, and therefore journalistic dirty-pool. The lobbyist-influence on a "reformer" part IS a legitimate news story that's unlikely to go-away, even if the sex-obsessed NYT didn't do a particularly-good job of covering it. When opponents can use McCain's words under oath against McCain-today, it's an issue.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Smear
February 23, 2008 - 11:26 ET by iveseenitallThe NYT article is just the beginning of the smear campaign which has now been launched by the left. But it has the potential to backfire on them. I hope it does.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The sex-part already backfired
February 23, 2008 - 11:46 ET by sarcasmoBy the fundraising numbers, it did his campaign far-more good than the NYT's earlier endorsement (which speaks volumes...).
But, like it or not, the lobbyist-part is here to stay for the duration. IMO it's a legitimate issue, and note the lawsuit in question. Lead plaintiff? Mitch McConnell. Senators ALWAYS know where the other Senators' dirt is. Mitch had Floyd Abrams go for the Paxson-influence angle for a reason in that McCain-deposition.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
Sarc - I said it before and I'll say it again.
February 23, 2008 - 12:39 ET by Dee BunkObama is the one talking about change and is the bigger so called reform candidate and if they should be exposing anyone's hypocrisy they should definitely be exposing his. He takes money from lobbyists (in a more sneaky way) and he also has added earmarks in his extremely short time as a Senator. If a reform candidate can be corrupted this quickly - how is he going to change anything? It's a joke. Obama is just as dishonest and sleazy as the rest of them. He's just got more charisma which really translates into being a phony liar.
I think the Matthew quote was right on the money. I don't like McCain anymore than I did before and I'm not happy that he's our candidate and never will be. That doesn't change the fact that what the NYT did was sleazy, unprofessional and 100% partisan.
To be FAIR .. I just read
February 23, 2008 - 11:52 ET by Jack BauerTo be FAIR .. I just read the whole piece, and unless I'm missing something, it merely confirms McCain's assertion that he did write a letter asking the FCC to expediate their decision.
But he already said that!
And it reiterates McCain's orginal contention that he would NOT lobby the FCC to reach a particular decision that benefitted the company lobbying or the telecoms company bidding.
The point about whether he PERSONALLY or his staff spoke to Paxson or Alcalde & Fay would seem to be not that interesting in the overall scheme of things.
he did write a letter
February 23, 2008 - 13:59 ET by motherbelthe did write a letter asking the FCC to expediate their decision. -Jack Bauer
And there is certainly nothing wrong with asking them to expedite their decision. He didn't push for a certain outcome, but merely asked them not to delay the process.
This is the best they've got????
Sheesh.
Little Dog, Little Bone
February 23, 2008 - 14:39 ET by CGatton"...unless I'm missing something..."
You're not missing anything. A lot of folks just want something to be there, and use the time-tested method of repeating until everyone believes. For example, that's at least three times I've seen Sarc state, "...The lobbyist-influence on a "reformer" part IS a legitimate news story that's unlikely to go-away..."
It may not go away, but not because there is anything there, rather because certain people will repeat it ad nauseum. Acknowledging under oath you have done something legal does not make it illegal, no matter how often the lie, or innuendo if you prefer, is repeated, but there are many who will try to make this non-story a big deal, and gnaw at it constantly.
After all, to the teacup Chihuahua, that chicken wing 'drummie' bone is huge.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
A hatchet job
February 23, 2008 - 11:32 ET by tcm22I expect that much of the support the McCain campaign is seeing in the last few days is based out of principle rather than politics.
Regardless of one's view of McCain as a candidate or President, the NYT story is worse than tabloid garbage. Many people know a crude hatchet job when they see it, regardless of political affiliation. While it doesn't seem possible in the media or even sites like this, not everything in the world is seen through the political prism.
this was a blantant smear attempt by the NYT
February 23, 2008 - 11:34 ET by c5thenA 1 year boycott would send the message. I don't expect it to happen because most of the NYT readership was probably cheering it on as they read it.
Dan Rather and Marry Mapes didn't invent the attitude, they were just caught. The liberal activists who work in the media think that the end justifies the means and they mean for the liberals to be in power. Now the NYT has been caught doing almost exactly the same thing. If Mapes and rather were fired for their false story, why should the authors and the editors who OK'd the NYT hatchet piece fare any better?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Destructive Criticism
February 23, 2008 - 12:05 ET by iveseenitallThere is a difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism, just as there is between constructive "change" and destructive "change". The NYT's motivation for their criticism is clear, just as is the Demos motivation for "change". Neither is about helping the country or making anything better. It's destructive, pure and simple. It's a grab for power over people's lives. The search for truth, right and wrong, are not considerations in anything the media, the schools, the "liberals" do in the public domain.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
They start to see
February 23, 2008 - 11:47 ET by KC MulvilleNot long ago, Hillary was the consensus front-runner. Republicans and conservatives tried to remind the country how underhanded the Clintons are, but the reminders fell on deaf ears. But after Obama rose to challenge Hillary, and the Clintons turned their snakes loose on Obama, suddenly all those Democrats realized that conservatives were right about the Clintons all along. Or more likely, they knew the Clintons were vicious all along, but were finally forced to confront it.
This is the same scenario here. We've been complaining about the unfairness of the New York Times for years, but the Left looked the other way. Now the NYTimes goes after McCain, and some on the Left are realizing that we were correct all along. And they're probably getting scared that the NYTimes may very well drop a bombshell about Obama, for whatever self-serving reason they might have.
That's why Newsbusters is useful. The NB gang repeats the daily litany of MSM unfairness, and maybe to some people, they're just saying the same thing every day. Why bother? Because just as the drip-drip-drip of liberal bias tries to erode any trust in conservatives, revealing the drip-drip-drip of liberal bias erodes the blind trust in the MSM. It means that if the MSM wants credibility, they're going to have to earn it. NB can take some credit (not all, but a healthy share) for trying to keep them honest.
Good job, especially today to Matt. I'm glad to see NB get the recognition.
I liked that McCain
February 23, 2008 - 12:07 ET by RickTaLifeI liked that McCain restrained himself to "I'm dissapointed with the New York Times." IMO, it made the Times look like children.
A little paranoia here, but
February 23, 2008 - 12:14 ET by jpm100A little paranoia here, but it was such a crappy hit job maybe they got the reaction they wanted.
I mean who would go forward on a 8 year old alligation based on the 'suspicion' of disgruntled ex-employees.
If they were functioning under a form of BDS, I'd think it was possible, but they love McCain. The McCain version of BDS hasn't had a chance to form yet.
So, how much is a NYT yearly Subscription ?
February 23, 2008 - 14:12 ET by JayTeeI wanna know how much money to Send to McCain's presidential effort.
If the Times sees this as Subscription money going out the Window, maybe they will CHANGE ?......I HOPE the NYT will Change....We need Change in America....For the first time in my Life, I am proud of the NY Times coming out of their Bias'ed Closet, so that even the most Casual NON-Subscriber can see why they don't buy the Rag called NY Times.
First Page stuff, it was not.