The New York Times is reporting today that it has reached a settlement with Vicki Iseman in her defamation suit against the paper. The suit stemmed from the NYT article which insinuated Iseman had an affair with John McCain. Here are the terms of the settlement:
The suit, filed by Vicki L. Iseman, the Washington lobbyist, was settled without payment and The Times did not retract the article. In an unusual agreement, however, The Times is letting Ms. Iseman’s lawyers give their views on the suit on the paper’s Web site.
Their opinion is accompanied by a joint statement from both sides and a note to readers, which will also appear in Friday's edition of the newspaper.
It is quite sad that it takes a lawsuit for the New York Times to at least sort of admit their wrong doing in publishing the disgrace to professional journalism that article is. And it is maddening that their pseudo-apology falls well short of what is required for this kind of egregious assault on reporting. Not to mention that it seems to take a lawsuit to make the New York Times print an editorial contrary to their opinion.
So you can an idea of just how disappointing the pseudo-apology the Times printed here is their note to readers:
An article published on February 21, 2008, about Senator John McCain and his record as an ethics reformer who was at times blind to potential conflicts of interest included references to Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.
And you can follow this link to the editorial from the lawyers who represented Iseman in her suit. And you can find the joint statement from both sides at this link. Be sure to check back to this post for updates as they are announced.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Where's Vera Baker?
February 19, 2009 - 21:32 ET by slickwillie2001But still not a word on Vera Baker, Obama's highly paid finance director from his Senate campaign, who was rushed off to the island of Martinique during the Presidential campaign at the insistence of M'chel. She has never been heard from since. She is likely being supported somewhere by an FOO in the Chicago machine.
Hillary's people picked up on this during the primary but the liberal media showed no interest then either.
slick... Isn't that
February 19, 2009 - 21:46 ET by bigtimerslick...
Isn't that always the way it is when it comes to the dems...
Reporters are there to protect and defend.
No investigation needed.
Situation over and out.
Maybe someday we may all the truth about O...I'm not holding my breath.
Warning: Old Gray
February 19, 2009 - 21:38 ET by d1carterWarning: Old Gray Lady...down!
dl... I heard a little
February 19, 2009 - 21:52 ET by bigtimerdl... I heard a little something today about the Old Grey Lady on one of the stock shows, something about dividends...which I didn't catch the rest, whatever it was, it wasn't a bit positive.
They will be in line for the next bail-out bill.
Pseudo apology indeed
February 19, 2009 - 21:43 ET by Reaver“The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.”
What a crock! What the article stated was that unnamed aides thought that maybe they were having an affair. It was that innuendo without any supporting evidence to back it up that made the story such a travesty of journalism.
If stupidity got us into this mess,
then why can't it get us out?
--Will Rogers
I don't think it was meant to be an apology
February 20, 2009 - 10:05 ET by nwahsI think the case looked futile, the lawyers asked the Times "What will you give us?" and this is what she got - this is ALL she got. If the case looked promising, they'd have held out for much more.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
I wonder how much she was paid?
February 19, 2009 - 21:48 ET by mizflame98Hopefully enough to make the NY Times stock value drop lower than the weekday edition of the paper?
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
She wasn't paid anything
February 20, 2009 - 10:01 ET by nwahsIf you read the joint statement, the suit is satisfied by the Times reiterating what they've been saying all along, and giving the plaintiff's lawyer a chance to write an editorial.
She pretty much dropped the lawsuit.
How this is not a victory for The New York Times, I don't see.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
The New York Times falsely
February 20, 2009 - 00:14 ET by TEThe New York Times falsely alleges: "The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain ...."
In the front page, anti-McCain attack ad/smear campaign in question, the New York Times alleged, with no evidence, that McCain and Iseman had a "romantic relationship" and an "inappropriate relationship".
True but...
February 20, 2009 - 02:15 ET by Stephen GutowskiThey would say they were just quoting sources and that it wasn't the point of the article. Obviously anyone with a brain can see that isn't the case though.