Go Long Softballs - Times To Respond To Reader's Queries On McCain Hit Job

The Time reporters and editors will take questions from their readers about the McCain hatchet job.

Let me get started with what I assume will be typical of the questions they actually deign to address - how could any serious article about John McCain fail to denounce his ongoing support of the war in Iraq and his claim that we will have troops there for a hundred years?

The Tines is fired up and ready to go at askthetimes@nytimes.com.

Now, if I thought for a nano-second they would take this exercise seriously, I would ask them how much new information they accumulated between the initial December rumors of this story and the actual February publication.  For instance, we are offered two anonymous sources alleging a romantic involvement between McCain and the lobbyist, with denials from everyone else and no supporting evidence; was the story even weaker in December, but diligent reporting unearthed a second source?  Or, if the story was that weak in December, what details emerged to make it stronger?

As if they will respond.

And do recall my official editorial position (and I saw that James Taranto of the WSJ had the same notion) - this story came too late to hurt McCain for the nomination and too early to affect the election.  Romney and Giuliani have the real beef about timing; McCain's (very legitimate) beef is that the story should never have been run.

Comments

[MayBee]

TM- are you going to ask them about fact they covered much of it 8 years ago? I think you should.
Don't link to your blog, though. I can already see the construct of their column answering questions "The article drew outrage from several Republican activists and conservative bloggers...".

[Dennis D]

NY Times must have hired Perez Hilton for his politcal contributions.

[Other Tom]

Seems to be a very broad consensus in the commentariat this morning that the whole thing has worked very much to MCain's advantage.

[windansea]

I would ask them why they violate their own policies regarding anonymous sources.

We do not grant anonymity to people who are engaged in speculation, unless the very act of speculating is newsworthy and can be clearly labeled for what it is.

We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack. If pejorative opinions are worth reporting and cannot be specifically attributed, they may be paraphrased or described after thorough discussion between writer and editor. The vivid language of direct quotation confers an unfair advantage on a speaker or writer who hides behind the newspaper, and turns of phrase are valueless to a reader who cannot assess the source.

http://www.nytco.com/company/business_units/sources.html

[clarice]

Capt ed notes that the leftish Seattle P-I refused to carry the story and shredded the NYT' ethics on running it.

[Other Tom]

Nice one, Windansea. Looks like they clearly violated the first quoted paragraph. The second one seems to explain why there were no quotes in the story.

[Nick Kasoff]

The larger question is ... will the MSM's love for McCain trump their hate for Republicans in November? I'm guessing that it won't, and that they will print any garbage they can come up with on him, while continuing their love affair with Obama. I'd love to be wrong, though - it would be the first fair election in my lifetime.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

[Jane]

David Brooks explains what happened. (link under my name)

I read it twice and I still don't think I get it.

[windansea]

OT

I don’t think Hillary is throwing in the towel yet.

From an interview TODAY:

There’s been a lot of talk about what your campaign would do should it get to the convention. Would you commit today to honoring the agreement made earlier not to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations?

Let’s talk about the agreement. The only agreement I entered into was not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. It had nothing to do with not seating the delegates. I think that’s an important distinction. I did not campaign

The press seems to have missed the distinction if that’s the case. The talk is that you agreed not to seat the delegation.

That’s not the case at all. I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that. I think it’s important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida. We have to try to carry both of those states. I’d love to carry Texas, but it’s usually not in the electoral calculation for the Democratic nominee. Florida and Michigan are. Therefore, the people of those two states disregarded adamantly the DNC’s decision that they would not seat the delegates. They came out and voted. If they had been influenced by the DNC, despite the fact that there was very little campaigning, if any, they would have stayed home. But they wanted their voices heard. More than 2 million people came out. I mean, it was record turnout for a primary. Florida, in particular, is sensitive to being disenfranchised because of what happened to them in the last elections. I have said that I would ask my delegates to vote to seat.

So your intention is to press this issue?

Yes, it is. Yes, it is. It’s in large measure because both the voters and elected officials in Michigan and Florida feel so strongly about this. Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, early on in the process actually sued because he thinks it’s absurd on its face that 1.7 million Democrats who eventually voted would basically be disregarded, and I agree with him about that.

linky

http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/polldancing/2008/02/hillary-seat-michigan-florida-delegates.php

Sounds like even if she loses Texas she is going to press for seating of florida & Michigan delegates.

[MayBee]

Jane-
I understand him to be saying that everyone in the McCain camp immediately blamed Weaver for the NYT story, because he has demons.
But Weaver didn't tell the times what the Times wrote.
So there is a huge open wound in the McCain campaign because he is loved by both the Montagues and Capulets, but the NYTs still made this story up out of nothing.

[GMax]

So I was thinking about this whole thing and how the Clinton machine will deal with it, and not light the match on a very Pyrrhic victory.

I am guessing that after most of the primaries are over, some superdelegates may begin a draft XXXX movement. I dont think it will be Gore but it will be a known name in the party. And a bunch of superdelegates will vote for that candidate on the first ballot. Now I am assuming and have not checked, that the rules release all delegates after the first round. So the wholesale raiding of Obama delegates can happen and when this is done, of course the superdelegates will also throw in with the winner.

Obama will be done in by 20 pieces of silver paid to certain well identified Judas types in the Obama camp.

Hide and watch.

[Jane]

So haven't both sides realized that? Since the hit job appears to be helping not hurting, shouldn't they all be joining hands in glee?

[MayBee]

Have you all seen this (MSNBC):

Campaigning in San Antonio last night, Bill Clinton praised his wife’s performance, NBC/NJ’s Carrie Dann notes. "I thought it was obvious that I was ready to be president and lead tomorrow," he said.

Freudian slip?

[MayBee]

Jane- My guess is they won't feel glee until their man is in the White House.

[hrtshpdbox]

"I don’t think Hillary is throwing in the towel yet."
She might be getting desperate, though; I understand her new campaign theme song is John Lennon's "Woman Is The Ni**er Of The World". With Bill coming on to do the sax solo at each rally.

[Elliott]

GMax,

Politico's Roger Simon had a story about the Clinton's going after Obama's pledged delegates, who, though they sign a pledge of first ballot support, are apparently in no way prevented from supporting another candidate on the first ballot.

[Other Tom]

I strongly disagree, GMax. I think most Dems realize at this point that if anyone but Obama gets the nomination, the party can forget about the black vote and forget about the White House.

[clarice]

I can't see the point of the Brools piece unless he's trying to show how connected he is to know that Weaver and Davis hate eachother. Nothing suggests that either were NYT ' sources .

[kim]

OT, who else are they gonna vote for? The ones still on the plantation, I mean. Yeah, they may stay home. The ones off the plantation already vote like moderates, susceptible to either siren.
===================

[GMax]

I did not say the palace revolt would be successful, I just tried to find a scenario with enough plausible deniability that the Clinton might think the first black President could pull it off. It works on that level at least.

If she does have a plan that is not that, what might it be? Winning a phyrric victory surely can not be it, as you well point out that blacks may get aggrieved if its just flat out stolen without some sleight of hand involved.

Maybe they have a Pictures of Eldridge Cleaver, Dorhn and Obama all freebasing some cocaine? How big would the scandal have to be to shock Democrat delegates? Even live boys or dead girls might not be enough...

[Jane]

I can't see the point of the Brooks piece

Oh I love it when I'm in good company.

[clarice]

We almost always see things the same way,Jane. That makes me happy, too.

[Dan]

Times editors and reporters answer questions about their pieces with the same slick duplicity they use to write them. Better to just tell them where to go and leave it at that.

[Steve]

I don't know why people are bothering with these major news sources anymore (like the Times). It's obvious all the bloggers (well... sort of) are more knowledgeable and aren't cramming payola into every orifice.

Wanted to let you know about a newsreader out there that exists that bases it's content on what the user actually WANTS to see. It's called 'Sprout'. Very intuitive, quickly learns what you like to read and what doesn't interest you. There's a free trial on now. You can find it here: www.yoursprout.ca.

[Jane]

Well not to pander Clarice, but if I had half your brilliance, I'd be brilliant indeed. You are all brain and I am all gut. (That pretty much describes my relationship with my business partner too.) It's not a bad combination.

[Dan]

To those who "can't see the point of the Brooks piece," here it is:

The piece keeps the pot boiling while adding poison to the soup. Now there's an internal feud we are supposed to be worried about. It's tearing McCain's campaign apart. What kind of leader allows that? And did you notice how Brooks raised the stakes? If McCain actually did stop beating his wife "then his presidential hopes will be over." Still not one fact or attribution in sight about a meeting that supposedly took place eight years ago supposedly involving a man who left McCain's staff last summer. Gossip, innuendo, insinuations, sophistry presented with feigned gravitas. You've got to ask yourself, who is this "conservative" working for? The short answer: The New York Times.

[Bill in AZ]

I suspect you're right Dan. I managed to get through half of it, decided it's NYTimes selfserving drivel, felt my brains getting sucked out, so I skipped the rest.

[Jane]

Plus they are playing to the wrong audience if thats' true.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I strongly disagree, GMax. I think most Dems realize at this point that if anyone but Obama gets the nomination, the party can forget about the black vote and forget about the White House.

Hell, Doug Wilder was already threatening violence in the streets if that happens.

Dammit, why do they have to have this convention in Denver?

[Jane]

If I were you Charlie, I'd get a blogging pass. (And wear a flak jacket)

[GMax]

Charlie

While I feel sorry for you, I am sure the nutballs will show up in Minneapolis and do their best to disrupt the GOP convention, so I kinda hope that the lefties preen and shashay around Denver too so that Mr. & Mrs. Muddle just as they start to pay attention gets a full snoot of what the Democrats are all about.

[Dan]

Jane & Bill:

No one despises the Times more than moi. Do you know that Rudy never gave them an interview? I'd recommend his pal McCain ignores them too. Still, there's no use denying they get in the faces of many people. Their news stories and commentary are syndicated and show up in newspapers throughout the country. So one of the things I try to do is contribute to the erosion of their stature whenever they leave themselves open. Remember Dan Rather. He got caught with his pants down by pajama people like us and now he lunches alone and talks to himself.

[windansea]

He got caught with his pants down by pajama people like us and now he lunches alone and talks to himself.

heh heh

hey, have you been spying on me?

seriously, the NYT must die, if they don't have anything they just make it up

[JM Hanes]

Per Jane's link, David Brooks says the Davis/Weaver rift at McCain HQ is "the background for the article my colleagues at The New York Times published Thursday," but he seems strangely reluctant to connect the dots he's proffering. Since he can't quite commit to casting Weaver in the role of lover scorned, his "background" sheds virtually no light on the question of why either rival for McCain's attentions would benefit from trashing the object of their affection. Is he really suggesting that one camp would peddle the story in order to blame the other for doing the dirty deed? Although he appears to believe he's plugged in well enough to do some investigating of his own, Brooks is ultimately just as unforthcoming as his colleagues.

In his own, increasingly wishy washy way, however, he's hit upon what's important about this story in two separate regards, despite fumbling the analysis of why. The real mystery here is not the rumored McCain affair, but "The two associates, who said that they had become disillusioned with the senator," and who, as Jill Abramsom phrased it, "provided detailed and consistent accounts about their concerns about the senator's relationship with a Washington lobbyist." Cue video of Ted Kennedy saying "I have concerns" about [insert name of Bush judicial nominee]'s racist record on civil rights....

While Brooks provides no answers, at least he's speaking to what most most folks reading this story actually end up wanting to know. Who are these former associates, when & why did they decide to peddle this story, and why on earth I should believe that two people voicing the same suspicions somehow qualify as corroborating sources? Bill Keller can pretend that "making the story about The New York Times" is just "a time-honored tactic for dealing with potentially damaging news stories." Ironically, that's Keller's own well-honed tactic for deflecting unwelcome attention on editorial politics that are as questionable, as opaque and nearly as anonymous as the pivotal sources at issue in his newspaper's pages time and time again.

As an aside, I have to say that Keller's disingenuity verges on creepy when he claims, "I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story." Let's just revisit that breathless take off, shall we?

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.....

You don't get to be Bill Keller without knowing exactly where to put the larger point for maximum exposure. There's news, and then there's 20 year old filler -- that point was pretty hard to miss.

The second larger point worth making is where Brooks comes in again, because his backgrounder is, in fact, potentially far more significant than the Times' meditation on McCain's putative laissez-faire attitude toward appearances:

The Davis-Weaver rivalry has lasted for so long because John McCain has a foot in each camp.... He appreciates a steady manager like Davis.... He loves the insurgent/band-of-brothers ethos that Weaver exudes. McCain was loyal to each camp in a house divided. But the poisons emanating from the rift have spread outward.

That kind of loyalty and the concomitant unwillingness to address poisonous divisions within one's own camp is despressingly familiar. It's a serious, and potentially debilitating, weakness which McCain apparently shares with George Bush. It occurs to me that the now familiar kind of personal betrayal highlighted by the Times may also be the inevitable result of allowing such resentments in the making to fester in the absence of decisive management. Brooks began by noting that Weaver was "forced out" last summer after a decade of divisive rivalry with Davis. That's not the same thing as saying he was fired, and it's not a good thing, and it's considerably more relevant to McCain's bona fides as an executive in "The Long Run" to which Keller refers than anything in the story the Times chose to run. I've always thought McCain offers virtually no improvement on Bush in the communication skills department. Alas, it now appears he suffers from both of Bush's greatest flaws.

[clarice]

JMH, How brilliant! Too bad Brooks cannot think or write with your clarity. This is a common failure of politicians. Senator Scoop Jackson suffered from it, too as I recall. OTOH perhaps many of them have witnessed first hand the damage that a fired aide can do.
Just saying.

[Dan]

"...McCain offers virtually no improvement on Bush in the communication skills department. Alas, it now appears he suffers from both of Bush's greatest flaws."

So JM, what do you advise we do in November? Sit it out or vote for Barack the Great Orator?

[MayBee]

Times editors and reporters answer questions about their pieces with the same slick duplicity they use to write them.

Hoo boy. You can say that again.

Reading through their answers, I am brought back to my time in Hong Kong. As part of China, propaganda is practiced there without apology. Occasionally the newspaper would produce citizen Q&As, much like this.
One I remember in particular went thusly:

Q:What will I do if a movie is filming in my neighborhood and the streets are closed for a long period of time?

A:Basically, this will not be a problem. You will be so proud that your street is participating in bolstering the economy of Hong Kong that you will not find it inconvenient.

I find the NYTs editors to have given the exact same consideration to the good citizens.

[Topsecretk9]

Times e-mail gave McCain best fundraising haul yet

John McCain raised more money from yesterday's Times-bashing e-mail pitch than he has from any other e-mail solicitation, according to a source familiar with the fundraising effort.

In a missive authored by campaign manager Rick Davis, the McCain camp used the Times story to portray themselves as a victim of the "liberal media."

The source declined to say exactly how much they raised.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0208/Times_email_gave_McCain_best_fundraising_haul_yet.html

[clarice]

What was Bill Keller thinking? Frankly, I think he's just revealed that he is as crazy as Pinch. There is no other explanation.

[GMax]

May Bee Great story. I wonder if that writer has now been hired by the Obama for President campaign. You will surrender your cynicism! And you will like it!

[MayBee]

ha!

[JM Hanes]

Double that to ha! ha! MayBee. I didn't realize just how proud I am.

Dan: "So JM, what do you advise we do in November?"

Unfortunately, you go to the polls with the candidate you have. If you're looking for recommendations, as opposed to observations, I'd just say buckle up, because it's going to be a very bumpy ride.

Clarice:

Brooks used to bring a lot of insight to the table, but somewhere along the way, he shifted into establishment gear and stayed there. He was once one of my favorite op-ed writers, but these days I think his piece on The Outsourced Brain was the best (hysterically funny!) thing he's done in ages. It's telling that the subject wasn't politics.

[ben]

The Times article is a not so clever effort to pre-empt all the negative stuff that is bound to come out about Obama. The theory at the Times is that if they can "tar everyone with the same brush", it will somehow innoculate Obama. Later hit pieces on Obama from other sources can be "offset" by the Times article. That is why actually many left leaning blogs are not jumping on this, they are hoping to get some slack later if they are "fairminded" now. This is not mean to sink McCain, its meant as insurance for Obama.