NYT defends McCain piece

Posted: Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:56 AM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
The New York Times is defending its story on McCain. Here's a statement from Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, released by the paper today:

"On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. In all the uproar, no one has challenged what we actually reported. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready.

" 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Yep, all of the non-denial denials, his former admission to cheating on wife #1, the stunning resemblance between wife #1, wife #2, and the purported mistress, coupled with his seeking representation by Clinton criminal defense lawyer Bob Bennet spell trouble for McCain. Looks like a pattern and slick attempt to avoid answering the direct question, i.e. "Did you cheat on wife #2 with the blonde lobbyist? If so, did your romantic relationship with her cause you to do favors for her and/or her clients?""

Mark, Tampa, FL (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:10 AM)

has anyone ever heard mccains wife speak? I see her standing around mccain all the time, but I have never seen her utter a word, does anyone else notice the uncanny resemblance she has to one of the women in the 'stepford wives' movie? reckon mccain have her ‘fixed’?

MK,MO (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:11 AM)

The Time's defends the smear? What defense? They have some rumors, and no evidence. Why aren't the reporters being quizzed on how they came up with the story? Why is the Time's editor being asked about why he or she is publishing a smear campaign with zero evidence of what they are saying?

Keller is a liar. The Time's is trash.

Ruth Gordon (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:13 AM)

NYT is a joke. They've alreay lost all credibility of being a source for impartial reporting of the news and have become nothing more than an extention for the Democratic Party's public relations and media department.

Josh Sosa (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:15 AM)

Hurray for the NYT. Stick to your guns.

Stilllaughing (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:17 AM)

Even as a democrat, I really feel sorry for Macain. After surfering for this country in Vietnam and being maimed by the enemy. Now even at home among his own people, a dagger right through the heart of his campain. It's a shame. Even if the alegations are right. It's nothing compared to Bush's war and it's costs to our country.

Please leave Macain alone, only us democrats gets to beat up on him. But never that hard.

Gillis Phoenix, Arizona (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:20 AM)

My question is why, after 8 years, they started looking at this in the first place? Who gave The Times the idea? It came from somewhere out there.

But why?

Anna Molly (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:25 AM)

Assuming this storey is accurate, I congratulate the NY Times for going forward at this time, publishing the storey and facing the noise from the right. They could have easily just filed away the storey and not faced these attacks. The American people demand that "the Press" perform its vital function during a presidential campaign. Let the truth come out before we elect the next President of the United States. If this is true about Senator McCain it is important because he continues to promote his moral superiority over the other candidates, using his POW experiences during the vietnam war as a reason for the American People to vote for him.

Ron P. (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:27 AM)

Nonsense Bill. Lay off the cheap Scotch. I see dozens of individuals,from McCain on down,Bennett,the rights usual suspects [including the McCain-hating Limbaugh who appears on the next MSNBC blog on this subject],doing just this. They are most certainly challenging your veracity,as you and others are too lazy to name names,places,and witnesses,falling back upon the always ''credible''[just ask Cotton Mather,Oliver Cromwell,Joe McCarthy or Huey Long],''anonymous''source. I could reach into my pocket and instantly provide an ''anonymous source''concluding that Bill Keller is a drag queen. Does not make it so,however. This is second-rate 'journalism' being conducted by third-rate 'editors'.

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:27 AM)

It appears that Barack Obama's youthful drug use is relevant after all. Not just a regurgitation of quotes from his book, but a hard hitting, substantial and incisive attack by the New York Slimes.

The executive editor defends the "substance" of the article. That's kind of like defending dog poop as food because there are a few kernels of undigested corn in it.

I'm assuming they will be doing follow-ups on Hillary's involvement in Whitewater and her inability to find files while she saved the world in her White House tenure.

Surely they will take on a substantial and in-depth report on Obama's much more recent relationship with Rezko.

How about an article about Michael Moore's collusion with Fidel Castro to destroy the Academy Awards?

The New York Slimes. All the innuendo and politically biased "news" that's fit to sling.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:31 AM)

If indeed NYT has facts checked by its lawyers, then Mccain should not just make mere statements. he needs more to get himself out of this potentially damaging situation.

Sem, VA (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:34 AM)

Once again we see the mouth of the NYT doing the work for their own agenda. This is old and all it's going to be a bump in the road for McCain . I would hope that the Grand old lady would for once report from the middle not from the DNC or the far left.

William M. Creech Goldsboro , North Carolina (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:36 AM)

OK MSNBC is this your way of trying to eliminate McCain like you have done so well to Clinton? Is this the only way you can promote your golden boy Obama by trashing all his other competition? You have been hashing this over long enough and should start with some real news. Meka and Joe what a trashy conversation you have been having all morning. Meka you are really disgusting with your supposing this and that. This is just what you did to the Clintons. Anything for your golden boy.

DJ (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:37 AM)

I seriously doubt the NY Times would ruin their reputation by printing something false. I think its true.
Didn't NY times also break the story about Bill Clinton?

apryl, charleston, SC. (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:38 AM)

This is just like what happened in Watergate. The Washington Post, in particular 'Woodstein', went after the story with vigor and the papaer faced heavy criticism for it. Well, guess who ended up resigning after all the smoke cleared... wasn't 'Woodstein' and the entire staff at The Post, right? Thought so...

This NYT piece is basically the same thing. Oh sure, the dummies on the Far Right will come out swinging but all they have are the tired and predictable 'accusations' of 'liberal this and liberal that' instead of actual refutations of the charges in the story. Typical.

Don't let the Rightwing Noise Machine deter you from doing your jobs, NYT. Keep at it. They have ZIP.

M. Boley (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:40 AM)

Hey Richard, you obviously are a Mark Levin listener. How about switching off the AM transistor radio and do some actual THINKING for yourself based on FACTS instead of relying on that worthless Bob Grant-wannabe for a change?

M. Boley (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:42 AM)

Where's the story about Obama and Sinclair? Let's give them all equal time! Or, maybe, it was the Obama people who pressured NYT to publish the article? Who'd benefit better than Obama?

fair (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:44 AM)

The NYT is what it is, as is the Washington Post. Without blaming and getting mad, the real story is there is NO story. If and when details emerge, then we can be mad; but at this point - online hits to NYTs have quadrizillionized, and for what! How brilliant!

T bOne (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:44 AM)

One should be cautious before attacking the NY Times. McCain was intrinsically involved in the Keating banking scandal. McCain has a history of befriending special interests groups and writing letters. Would his paper trail be harmful to him as a candidate? There seems to be a pattern in his behavior, specifically, McCain has a problem with lobbyists. Any potential sexual relationship is bogus when compared to his inability to walk the line to his own mantra, "Let's control the lobbyists." McCain's actions from Keating till today, speaks louder then the NY Times. How about some journalistic probing, get your hands on the letters he wrote, and provide them in historic (Keating) context. Let the voters decide what is relevant.

Rachelle, Princeton (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:44 AM)

I encourage everyone to actually read the NYT article from start to finish before hyperventilating. If it had been entirely on p. 17 instead of starting on the front page, it would have been seen for what it is - a background piece on one of the candidates, with a little bit of detail that the candidate would have preferred not to have widely discussed. Otherwise I think the NYT also stresses McCain's decency, and tells the story well of how he came to be a reformer on campaign finance, etc. Again, good reporting by the NYT, but the story should have been on p. 17 only.

Daniel Knutson, St. Charles, IL (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:45 AM)

This smacks of “Tabloid Journalism.” The New York Times has disappointed more than John McCain. This is apparently what you get when a group of editors answer only to themselves. Paraphrasing Lincoln: “If you want to test men’s character, in this case the NYT editors, give them power.” We now can see that the Times editors are only men like the rest of us, with their own political leanings – but with too much power.

Donald Hackford (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:47 AM)

The professional who "broke" this story could have done his/her research on Wikipedia any time in the last 8 to 22 years. I'd be looking for plagiarism. It's happened before at the New York Slimes.

Richard, Washington State (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:48 AM)

Since the New York times wants to report on speculation; how about telling us about the lawsuit filed in Minnesota by Larry Sinclair on Monday against Barak Obama and the democrat party and Obama's camp leaders for threats, intimidation and suppression of free speech.

John Doe (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:54 AM)

WOW, Let's just see what happens. This could be the end for McCain. We all need to let them report what happen.

The end for McCain (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:54 AM)

For everyone that thinks this story is to elevate either Democrat, I would remind all of us that the NY Times Endorsed McCain for President. Having said that, the only thing I do not understand is - Why Now?

Barbara C., Pompano Beach, FL (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:55 AM)

The NYT- what a rag.

Carol, Austin TX (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:55 AM)

This is great! Will keep Grandpa John busy defending his own crap and give Obama time to put Hillary to bed! IT (McCain's boosting, pill popping wife does speak and the first thing to come out of that "Stepford Wives" mouth was to try to knock Michelle Obama. What genius in that campaign thought that was a great idea? Say what you will about W, and I absolutely abhorr the policies of the current Bush administration, Laura Bush has been a class act. She has been a First Lady Americans can be proud of. She is gracious and dignified and would never stoop that low! Oh, McCain will have problems and I can't wait!

Obama 08

Obama Mama, Ashburn, VA (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:57 AM)

Must be the vast leftwing conspiracy behind this LOL

JWilson, Atlanta, GA (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:00 PM)

If this had been in the works for quite some time, why did the NYT endorse McCain last month? Shouldn't they have at least mentioned questionable behavior?

Elias, Boston, MA (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:01 PM)

Cindy McCain had a stroke that left her with short term memory loss. That might explain why she rarely speaks. She also has a controversial past relating to drug addiction and stealing from a medical charity she set up to help disadvantaged children. Google her for more info. There is a pretty balanced report on Wikipedia.

Stacy, Virginia (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:01 PM)

M. Boley: Yet it was Bill Clinton,who as president,was infuriated at the Times for the story they printed on page one on the capabilities of the CIA to monitor al Qaeda cellphone traffic. The Times lied when it printed a fabricated Iraq ''soldiers letter''in 2006 and again when it asserted,using the piece Sy Hersh wrote for the NEW Yorker in Aug.2006 that we were ''going to war with Iran''.[According to Hersh,''by September''of 2006]. Indeed,the Times lies and misstatements are legion,with independant media watchdogs that are not creatures of the ''right''amassing these in great detail. Go here.

The Pew Charitable Trust www.people-press.org

Annenburg Project www.factcheck.org

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:01 PM)

And MSNBc couldn't wait to pounce on this last night with attack dog Olbermann. Now that you've helped doom Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, you've now set your sights on destroying John McCain.

MSNBC is full-time, all-the-time Obamarama. You ought to get a fee for all the hype you give this guy.

Got journalism? I think not.

SJS, Kansas City, MO (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:03 PM)

MK,MO --- > has anyone ever heard mccains wife speak? I see her standing around mccain all the time, but I have never seen her utter a word, <---

Yeah, she speaks. She says, unlike another candidates wife, that she has always been proud of her country.

Russ Milo (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:03 PM)

But, Mr. Keller, the question isn't whether your facts are true. The question is, why didn't you realize that the facts you had didn't add up to anything? In a desperate attempt to salvage months of reporting, you gin up a pseudopsychological treatise -- McCain trusts himself too much -- and use an acre of background to try make a flimsy set of facts (McCain's aides kept him from making a mistake he might not have made anyway) fit into your premise.

The Obama drug use story, with its ridiculous paragraph of speculation -- Maybe he didn't really use drugs! Maybe his pothead friends don't remember! Maybe we misinterpreted his book! -- was just as bad. Mr. Keller, why can't you just tell your staff that when a story doesn't pan out, you won't print it?

Don P. (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:04 PM)

Private "affairs" of politicians should remain private unless a crime is involved.

I commend Huckabee for taking McCain at his word. Sometimes you must have faith in people and give the benefit of the doubt even if you know you might be wrong. I know, I did that for Bill Clinton when he said he did not have sex with Monica.

nuanced (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:06 PM)

I'd like to add a non-emotional perspective here. Although we are fixated on the "sexual" nature of the claims made by the "informants," it seems that we have overlooked the basis of the article - Mc Cain's imprudence. Their sources speak to imprudence more than infidelity.

The article is not flattering in the least and we can continue to speculate about the motives for publishing such an article, however, I think that if we agree that this is the premise of the article, then we can continue the discourse about this candidates viability. Is he overzealously hiding behind the shield of ethics or does his actions align with his position and platform?

If this is the question, it is fair, although the NYT could have been less scandalous in getting to it.

Dee, St. Louis, MO (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:07 PM)

I have just changed my Yahoo news page to the Christian Science Monitor, as I no longer have any confidence that the Times will report serious news. Look out National Enquirer you have serious competition.

Walt Hobbs, Tomahawk, Wi. (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:08 PM)

Hey, Ron P: There's no "e" in story.
Der.

John Doe, Seattle Washington (Sent Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:07 PM)

Yeah, when Obama grabs the nomination I hope they do the Sinclair story. Obama may have a strange Lewinsky in his closet.

PC, Obama's Limo (Sent Friday, February 22, 2008 12:19 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=688130