Hint of sex takes away from real story on McCain
So, did the New York Times go too far in last week’s story about Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee in the race for president?
I tend to side with the Times’ public editor, who wrote Sunday that the suggestion that McCain might have had an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman - which McCain denies - took away from the story and probably didn’t belong.
Whether the story as a whole had merit is another matter. But the hint of sex took the focus away from the story’s primary point, and Times editors should have seen that coming. Maybe they did and decided the information was too important to leave out. Editor Bill Keller suggested as much in a question-and-answer on the Times’ Web site.
Still, I have to disagree with the decision. The story wasn’t about sex at all. It was about a once-sullied U.S. senator and presidential candidate who rebuilt his reputation by supposedly standing up to big money and its influence in politics. While doing so, he often proclaimed loudly that lawmakers should avoid even the appearance of conflict in order to gain the trust of the American public.
The Times story reported that McCain, like so many politicians, may have said one thing and done another. In fact, according to the Times story, his aides were so concerned about the appearance of conflict because of his close ties to Iseman that they intervened with him and asked her to stop spending so much time with the senator. Before that, McCain and Iseman had been seen together often, and McCain and his staff had flown at least four times in the corporate jet of Iseman’s client, Paxson Communications.
McCain later pressured the Federal Communications Commission to vote on an issue that cleared the way for Paxson, which also was a major contributor to his presidential campaign, to buy a Pittsburgh television station.
The Times story used the Paxson case as a possible example of how McCain didn’t always avoid the big-money influence that he so often and so loudly decried.
My point isn’t to suggest that McCain was right or wrong in his actions. My point is that he’s a presidential candidate, and it could be argued that voters have a right to know about his relationship with Paxson. Unfortunately, the relationship between the lobbyist and McCain, whatever it was or wasn’t, attracted all of the attention and debate.
May 9, 2008 at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
BILL CLINTON WAS IMPEACHED, he lied to the people of this country under oath. Why is McCain subject to anyone's opinion. Look at the real issues people, history is written by those with the power. CNN, BBC, ABC, NYT, and even the JG have opinions, but accepting them at face value is your responsibility. Being uniformed is a choice that many make because it's easier than dealing with reality.
Ask tough questions, seek answers, and judge for yourselves.
Feb 26, 2008 at 6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
I am not suggesting that any responsible editor would choose to run a story for the sensational aspects. I know from what I see at the Gazette that the current editor adheres to high standards. I also think that Mr. Angus would be reluctant to accuse the New York Times of sensationalism unless it was somewhat more extreme than this and I commend him for that even though I doubt that the NYT would care or be aware. Sex and sensationalism are indicative of a tabloid publication, not a responsible newspaper. I think that the NYT was using this tactic to draw attention to an otherwise dry story that most people would otherwise not read and to promote their liberal agenda.
Feb 26, 2008 at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sex sells. Doesn't every editor know that?
Feb 26, 2008 at 2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott Angus ir right on this one -- and I'm writing as someone who is no supporter of McCain, to say the least. The intimations in the Times' headline were juicy, and it's a shame, because they have a good story there; the fact that they bungled it sheds doubt on its credibility in the minds of many.
Angus is not incorrect in his sixth paragraph, above, but the language is a bit careless; McCain's letters to the FCC urged a vote, but did NOT urge a vote to clear the way for that company to make the purchase. McCain was looking for an up-or-down vote on a matter that had sat at the FCC for a long time. And I'm no fan of journalistic monopoly, either, and it may be that McCain had information that the FCC was leaning toward the company. But McCain's letter urged a vote -- period. Not a "yes" vote. Just a vote.
Feb 26, 2008 at 12:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
this is tame compared to what is coming in the next 8 months. I just wish Democrats could control a tenth of the media that Republicans control. Remember, Don't get into a fracas with people who buy ink by the barrel !!
Feb 26, 2008 at 10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Many times in politics it more fun to listen to a candidate deny statements than to be certain of the facts prior to a statement being made. Remember the comment attributed to President Johnson when asked if he had proof of public statements he wanted to make concerning his opposition. His response was that he had no proof, but he just wanted to hear the opposition deny the accusations.
Feb 26, 2008 at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
hahaha Loved the comment by NVgrf! Angus makes a good point here.... the story was about influence, not sex. I find it interesting and I hope the story does not die as I think there is something there. Plus, I have to wonder about how in touch with the real world McCain is when his wife looks (and acts) like a Barbie doll.
Feb 26, 2008 at 10 a.m.
Suggest removal
When it was Bill Clinton, his opponents ripped him to pieces. But then I guess the fact that a Republican official may have been sexually active at all is gigantic news!!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.