I’m still dumbfounded by the New York Times’ audacious front-page report about Sen. John McCain and an improper relationship he allegedly had with a female lobbyist. And when I say “dumbfounded� I am not claiming surprise at the clear bias the Times held in what appears to be a very calculated news release; rather, I am referring to the shock I received when I realized that one of the world’s most respected newspapers published a front-page piece that lacks the foundation one would expect to find in a high school research paper. From the New York Times:
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 — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
Did I mention that this allegedly occurred eight years ago? Yes, folks. The New York Times published an eight-year-old story on its front page. And since we’re digging up old news maybe we should speak about the sexual allegations (i.e. rape) that were brought against former President Bill Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick. But, I suppose the Times isn’t interested in such folly, since being allegedly tied to a lobbyist is apparently much worse than being accused of rape. But I digress.
Coincidently, the Times would have had no problem finding former McCain campers who were more than willing to speak about the allegations presented, yet they chose to obstain from interviewing anyone who disagreed with their political inclinations:
Dan Schnur, McCain’s communication director during his 2000 presidential bid, told CNN on Thursday that he was involved in most high-level situations and that such a problem almost certainly would have ‘landed on my desk’.
At what point did it seem appropriate – ethically or journalistically for that matter – to publish a piece without viable sources? And it’s quite unsettling to note that the paper did not quote the individual in question (especially considering that the McCain camp provided the Times with countless pages of documentation). It’s as though Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi got together for a late-night slumber party in the Times newsroom to pen this ideal-type example of liberal media bias. One wonders what the executive editor of the New York Times have to say about the piece?
“The story speaks for itself.� - Bill Keller
He’s right. The story speaks volumes. Not only does it fit perfectly into a never-ending puzzle of liberal media bias that can be easily assembled with countless examples of New York Times blunders, but, and perhaps more importantly, it takes this bias (which the paper incessantly denies) and expands it to such great proportions that, regardless of party affiliation, one cannot help but admit the unethical actions taken by the Times. But don’t take my word for it; for corroboration please re-read the New York Times vs. General Petraeus conundrum that manifested months ago.
Let’s not forget that this is the paper that proudly claims to publish “All the News That’s Fit to Print.� Ironically, a quick read-through typically possesses the same talking points one can expect to hear at this year’s Democratic National Convention – so if the Democrats are the only one’s who spout off news and views that are fit to print, I suppose the Times is accomplishing what it has set out to do. So much for democratic and non-partisan newsrooms.
And the hypocrisy of groups like MoveOn.org and AlterNet is unbelievable, but consistent with past actions. Both organizations have been more than willing to attack FOX News on occasion, but have, ironically, become entirely mute when overt examples of media bias come from their neck of the woods.Â
Actually, allow me to realign that statement: These organizations have actually stepped forward to corroborate these bogus liberally driven stories, in place of defending democratic action. It’s apparently okay for the Times and other mainstream outlets to unfairly attack the right, but when FOX News does it, all hell breaks lose. Take, for instance, a headline (video) on AlterNet just this morning: “The Real McCain: Senator Gets Millions From Lobbyist ‘Friends’.� And, no, I won’t link to it.
The core of the issue is not whether the New York Times purposefully or unintentionally acted journalistically irresponsible. No, the true issues at hand are the perceptions present amongst reporters and editors at the Times. If the “newspaper of recordâ€? believes that it is fair and balanced to publish pieces that err on one side of the political spectrum, then there’s a serious problem we (and the news media) have to confront.Â
And if the news media don’t realize that they are publishing skewed works, we have an even bigger problem. The New York Times has not only published an abhorrent piece, but it has also steadfastly stood by it. Disgraceful to say the least.
I can’t help but wonder what Dan Rather is thinking right now.
Guest post written by Billy Hallowell. Visit his web site.
People from around the United States have noticed Billy Hallowell’s hard work and dedication. He has been published/featured in political and cultural books, textbooks as well as articles and websites focusing on the youth of America and its role in the future of the world. In 2003, he attended the World Bank’s conference on youth development in Paris, France. Over the years, he has become known as a major force among young people and has received prestigious journalism and community awards for his work. Since he was 15-years-old, Billy has been working through the communications industry to connect and reach out to his peers.
Technorati Tags:Â billy hallowell, john mccain, ny times, new york times, femaly lobyist
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Billy,
Bullshit again!
"And the hypocrisy of groups like MoveOn.org and AlterNet is unbelievable,..."
Aaaah........"Obama claims that he doesn't take money from lobbyists. The truth is, he is as beholden to special interest groups as all of the other candidates."---Alternet
http://www.alternet.org/election08/77492/
So, since you didn't want to post the link, i will. Stop making up stories and passing it off as journalism.
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
@ davidwwalters
somehow, I knew you'd be the first to respond. LOL
On a side note, the issue is about the NYT and their ridiculous story about McCain. It's no wonder why they are labeled the "voice of the left.� And, why do they not report the story about Larry Sinclair and Obama? It is coming straight from the horse’s mouth on this one; and it’s not 9 years old either.
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
UC.....
You know it! Yeah, i have too much free time!(time to roll another.........purely medicinal, he he!)
But to Larry Sinclair........has Fox done anything on him? Maybe Larry did blow Obama, but did Obama perform any legislative acts on Larry?
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Lemme guess....medical marijane?
This post isn't necessarily about the morals (or lack there of) of having sex outside of marriage with a man or woman (whether you are giving or receiving). It’s about journalistic integrity. Now, I haven't seen anything from Fox, but the NYT has a tendency of writing fallacious stories and they have an agenda.
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
UC.........
Damn, you're good! Hell yeah, maybe if we can just get the VA to send it to me with my percocet, then i wouldn't need to waste so much gas running across town to see "the Man".
Yes, journalistic integrity was what i chided Billy about with his article(facts are somewhat important). Our job as citizens is to wade through the bullshit and TRY to discover the truth(before it's to late). I could have done without the ny times piece, just as i could have done without BillO's "lynching" comment. So much air time and print goes into this bullshit, and i see it merely as a smokescreen from the real issues, like Shell Oil buying oil leases for $0.03/barrel on public land(don't you think the American public is due a dividend?)
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
David:
Did you miss the part of my post that explains that FOX admits its bias, while the NY Times claims to be free of ideological inclinations? Guess so.
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
"At what point did it seem appropriate – ethically or journalistically for that matter – to publish a piece without viable sources?"
Not sure what this means exactly. Are all unnamed sources no longer viable ... or just unnamed sources in stories from media outlets you dislike? Granted I'm somewhat inclined to question sources who won't go on the record, but last time I checked "Deep Throat" stayed off the record for 33 years.
Also not sure it should be that upsetting that someone is publishing an 8 year old story about a guy who is CURRENTLY running for president. Isn't that usually how it works during campaigns?
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Billy.......
Yeah, i can read(a little).......and i see no real problem with a story about a Senator who paints himself as the straight talker and is literally in bed with a Lobbyist(seemingly quid-pro-quo). If the story is false, time will tell and it will be no embarrassment to McCain. If true.......we need to know.
I know when i read the "Times" i'm gonna get a skewed view of the facts........just like when i watch FOX. Billy, again, you have shown no integrity whatsoever in this article......you flat out lied about the alternet piece as i stated in my initial rebuttal to your latest edition of right-winged noise.
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I was referring to AlterNet on the macro-level - what the organization stands for, sir. So, simmer. I didn't lie about anything.
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Billy........"I was referring to AlterNet on the macro-level - what the organization stands for, sir. So, simmer. I didn't lie about anything."
And i can see where you wouldn't want to post the link to alternet.........it would look stupid to have an article(on the same page) critical of Obama, would it not?
So, now your using some verbal gymnastics to repair an error........(next time, to keep that from happening again, may i suggest being FACTUAL)......
No, this is a modest article, by a very modest writer.
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
There was no error. You're just being a liberal.
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Billy(Glutton for punishment).............
Yes, you were in error with your statement, want another?
"Actually, allow me to realign that statement: These organizations(Alter-net)have actually stepped forward to corroborate these bogus liberally driven stories, in place of defending democratic action."
As i stated, and the link i provide shows clearly........THIS statement isn't true. Alter-net did address the issue of Lobby influence peddling that is endemic to the detriment to our system, and that it is on both sides of the aisle.
"Obama's Line on Lobbyists Is Misleading"
http://www.alternet.org/election08/77492/
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Again, I was referring to the overall spectrum of stories that have been published with a leftist slant. You obviously don't read too closely yourself, for that matter. The piece on Obama that you are referencing was posted on February 26, 2008. I composed my piece on the NY Times on February 24th -- prior to the Obama piece being published. If you want corroboration on that, go to http://www.whereistand.com/blog/billyhallowell.
So, you're actually quite wrong. You also have not noted that there was a video link on AlterNet.org that backed up the McCain claims the day I wrote my story, thus verifying my statement: "These organizations(Alter-net)have actually stepped forward to corroborate these bogus liberally driven stories, in place of defending democratic action."
You're wrong. Normally I wouldn't respond to such folly, but I think it needs correction.
Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Ahh, silence.
Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Hey Billy,
Why no response to my questions about sources? Did david fire you up ... or leave you drained? Still curious what you meant regarding "viable" sources. Are you saying that any unnamed source is not a viable one?
Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
No, Suburban. I'm saying that from a journalistic standpoint, no legit outlet would publish a tabloid-like story on its front page. As far as sources go, if you're going to "break" a story, at least cite someone. Maybe McCain, himself? He provided documentation that would have provided a well-rounded presentation of the facts, but they chose to leave it out. If you don't see the journalistic violations, I'm not sure how to assist.
Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I never said that there was, or wasn't, a violation of journalistic integrity ... so I'm not quite sure why you had to end a rather nicely structured comment with a condescending little tweak at the end.
The way you presented your thoughts makes it look like any report that focuses on a prior transgression, or fails to cite insiders who might be just as interested in hiding the truth, HAS to be trash. Face it, old stories become relevant during an election, and you have to know that Clinton, Nixon, or any other scandal ridden politician, has had staffers willing to cover for them in a crisis. Doesn't mean that it can't be true.
That being said, I do believe that the NYT dropped the ball big time on this one, but I'm also quite certain that there are plenty of examples of opposite leaning media reporting questionable stories with limited sources that didn't manage to get your panties in quite as serious of a bunch.
Then again, bunchy panties seem to be all the rage around here.
Thursday, February 28th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
What's sad is that this may well be the best that The New York Times can do, these days.
Saturday, March 8th, 2008 at 6:15 am
Mr. Hallowell, spot on analysis of NY Times.
What more do you expect from hysterical left wing media?
"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..."
This sounds like the cover story for TMZ, Entertainment, or People. The NY Times sounds like TigerBeat at best here. It's sad really.