By Denise Ross

Here’s a critique of the NYT’s McCain story that reflects my own view. Debra Saunders nails the story’s most glaring weakness:

Either new information will come forward to corroborate this weak story - based solely on the speculation - as opposed to actual knowledge - of two sources (who refused to be named and, for all we know, may have an ax to grind) …

The story purported to be about McCain’s ethics and dealings with D.C. lobbyists, in a failed attempt to gloss gossip with a patina of gravitas.

The story doesn’t quote two independent, yet anonymous, sources who said they knew of an affair. It quotes two unnamed people who said they were worried something might be happening or might be about to happen and so they had a talk with McCain. And I guess that talk is the news peg?

If I were on John Thune’s campaign staff, I’d have a talk with him about being sure he ate 3 squares a day. (Actually, I’m pretty sure this has happened.) Would that be news, too?

LEDE: Early in Senator John Thune’s first run for the Senate six years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

Thune had been skipping meals even when food was around at fund-raisers, at his office and during travel. Convinced the situation had become noticable, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself - instructing staff members to deliver meals to Thune’s office, privately warning his wife of his lack of caloric intake and repeatedly confronting him with Taco Bravos, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

The headline could be: For Thune, Work Ethic in Campaign Poses Its Own Risk (Note this doesn’t say: Thune’s diet unhealthy OR Thune’s not eating, y’all! Nor does the NYT story say: McCain romantically linked to lobbyist.)

And then, after the Taco Bravo bombshell, the story could go on to chronicle how Thune had been known before to bypass eating in favor of shaking hands and listening to constituents.

I found the NYT story so thin that I thought it would fall under its own weight and we would all go on, tsk-tsking over the episode. But then, as I was nodding off last night, I heard Conan O’Brien make a joke with the underlying assumption that McCain had cheated. And Mr. Hoghouse came home from work relaying co-workers’ dismay that McCain had had an affair.

But this is a story where, in its printed form, there’s no there there. There’s more substance in my Thune parody than in the story itself. Ditto for the story’s attempts to say McCain did favors for lobbyists, including this woman.

And I agree with Saunders.

Or nothing new will come forward and the public will have every reason to believe that the New York Times and copycat media smeared McCain.

And the next time the Times announces that it has lost circulation or is eliminating more newsroom positions, people will cheer, when they should be saddened. This story is bad news for the news business.

In preparing for a brave new journalism world in which the printed word is but one of many forms of distribution, the NYT has been an old media beacon of pragmatic savvy. It’s stories like this one - and they’ve had a few - that will undermine the brand just when they need it to be its hardiest for the gathering storm.

Spread the word

Hide Sites