Pick Your Punchline

Everyone should find a laugh in the long Times chat defending their hatchet job on McCain.  I am only partway through but my fave so far is this "Let The Woman Answer That" handled by Jill Abramson:

Q. If the real story is the appearance of impropriety by Senator McCain when facilitating donor's interests, why include the sexual innuendo? Wouldn't the implicit accusation of adultery have been better served as its own article, once there was sufficient evidence to support it? Does this story rely on the assumption that the presence of women in male-dominated industries, such as politics or business, inherently creates the perception of impropriety? Why deliberately show Ms. Iseman in a party dress? Were there no available pictures of her in professional attire?

— Joseph Genereux, Pasadena, Calif.

A.: ...Documents are always useful in reporting, but they are not required. The Times story was not about a romantic relationship. It was about a senator who had been embroiled in scandal, then rebuilt his career as a reformer and concern among his aides that his relationship with Ms. Iseman was putting that career at risk.

Certainly the story in no way said or suggested that women in male-dominated professions create the perception of impropriety.

— Jill Abramson

I'm almost thinking that if the Times didn't exist as the pinnacle of smug self-rightousness, we would need to invent them.  Almost.

Oh, well - most of their readers deserve them.

Comments

[GMax]

Documents are always useful in reporting, but they are not required. The NYT

Better NYT

Badges? We dont need no stinkin'badges!

[GMax]

off you pest

[Rick Ballard]

"Oh, well - most of their readers deserve them."

The "most" covers readers whose lobotomy was voluntary, right? So the readers who have had a coerced lobotomy deserve better?

[MayBee]

The sources corroborated one another without orchestration, an issue, among others, that our team meticulously investigated.

Does this sentence have any meaning?
If it does, it seems to me it is saying the team meticulously investigated that the sources didn't orchestrate their stories.
How in the world did they do that?

[hit and run]

I agree with MayBee.

MayBee and I did not orchestrate our stories.

[bgates]

You guys say what you want about the Times story. All I know is this:

Reading it, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of America.

[Dan]

Times staffers answer questions about their stories with the same slick duplicity they use to write them. It's an essential character trait they look for before they'll hire you.

[SteveMG]

H&R and Maybee:
May we quote you on this?

[Paul Zrimsek]

We knew some readers would disagree with our decision to publish this information. After all, we wrestled with our own doubts on that score.

Anyone who thinks the WWF is a scripted charade has never watched a liberal wrestle with his doubts.

[MayBee]

Not using my name, SMG.
Please refer to me as "someone familiar with the inner workings of the NYTs editorial offices".

[Paul Zrimsek]

it seems to me it is saying the team meticulously investigated that the sources didn't orchestrate their stories.
How in the world did they do that?

Bigger spies have little spies,
Who vet their credibility.
Little spies have littler spies,
And so to risibility.

[windansea]

the arrogance is fugly

Clearly, many of you did not agree.

Yes, Mr. Mullaney, I read the commentary you refer to on slate.com. I hope you'll take a look at another piece on slate.com, by Jack Shafer, which defends us. "The evidence the paper provides more than adequately establishes that McCain remains a better preacher about ethics, standards, appearances, and special interest conflicts than he is a practitioner, something voters should consider before punching the ballot for him," is Shafer's conclusion. You can probably guess which commentary I liked better.

— Bill Keller, executive editor

[clarice]

Maybe:"Please refer to me as "someone familiar with the inner workings of the NYTs editorial offices".

Your best ever that I recall! (Have you and Hit really not been orchestrating? Disgruntled former staffers ahave expressed their concerns.)

[windansea]

that's the Executive Editor of the New York Times expressing his decision making process for all to see

[windansea]

The Times also made repeated effort to seek Ms. Iseman's comment and responses to questions. Beginning in December, she answered some questions by e-mail, though she declined to speak to reporters on the phone. She again declined a phone interview the day of publication.

so why not post these responses?

I smell misogynism, or something gender related, how can this woman's honor be impinged by anonymous innuendo?

I think the gender card is in play here :)

[SteveMG]

It's an indefensible piece.

Shafer is applauding information that they ran, as TM showed, eight years ago.

They just re-packaged it, threw in some salacious allegations and hit enter.

C'mon, this is supposed to be the leading newspaper in the country?

Reston would've been embarassed.

[Syl]

Certainly the story in no way said or suggested that women in male-dominated professions create the perception of impropriety.

This is pathetic.

Of course the story did just that by giving credence to 'associates' concerns while providing not a spec of evidence beyond the fact McCain is male and she is female.

[clarice]

Believe it or not, years ago another lawyer called me and asked for some assistance on a point of law in a case he was handling which was in an area I had some experience with. At the end of the conversation he thanked me and said he'd take me to lunch but as I he was a married man and I was a woman he thought that improper unless my husband agreed to join us. This sounds like that..no unaccompanied woman lobbyists on the Hill please...

[capitano]

Of course the story did just that by giving credence to 'associates' concerns while providing not a spec of evidence beyond the fact McCain is male and she is female.

Posted by: Syl | February 22, 2008 at 09:04 PM

Oh, it's better -- she is younger and a hottie, while he's too old for her, but a powerful politician. So even if there were a romantic relationship, it could only have been quid pro quo... and not the good kind.

[Topsecretk9]

I believe I said the other night that this story illustrated that NYT's are prudes ONLY with conservative men. It's essential message is professional woman have NO business interacting with Republicans. Their showing a picture of her period proves that. Her picture added nothing at all, zip, to the story they just wanted to show how pretty she was, wink wink.

Maybe McCain was flirty to her and she a) liked it or b) read more into it and bragged about it (the Weaver guys says as much)

Maybe she was flirty and flattering to him and a) he liked it and b) read more into it and bragged about it (the Weaver guys says as much)

Anyways, it's not adultery or a crime to flirt even while married.

Identity crap gone all topsy turvy.

[Jane]

This has been a hell of a week in politics, and mostly all good.

Who would have guessed?

[Scrapiron]

Leading news paper in the country for the 13 people that read it, well make that 113 with the hundred free copies they give the wino's to cover up with.

[TMF]

"It was about a senator who had been embroiled in scandal, then rebuilt his career as a reformer"

Thanks for clearing that up.

Here I thought he was a guy who was a POW for 6 years, and then rebuilt his shattered soul into a hugely successful career as a public servant.

[clarice]

I wouldn't have , Jane.

[TMF]

Its not like they care what we say

They knew it was a sleazy, empty article

It was a hit piece, plain and simple, and their replies are pretty much just an "FU" to anyone challenging them

NEver in a million years would they do anything similar to a Dem.

Edwards had quite a few rumours floating about a possible "love child"- no front pager on that scoop

Its good to be the king i suppose

[Bus28]

He's a guy who worked for the government and took what he did and traded for Congress and no term limits. He's in the way of people who want to serve, like the Obamasiah!!!!!!!

Do not doubt the chosen one or there are dead people and stuff.

[hit and run]

Tops:
Anyways, it's not adultery or a crime to flirt even while married.

Great point, Tops!

I agree!!!

And by the way, you are looking especially lovely this evening.

[clarice]

Tough, Hit. I am all thwacked out--blame PUK.

It's after 10, I hope you remembered to tuck those darling offspring of yours into their beds. And that you didn't feed them your usual cheeto pizza dinner roll ups with beer chasers.

[crazy]

When the ladies swoon for Obama it's a feature, when they swoon for McCain it's a crime.

[sophy]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some habbo gold .