Here is a link to the New York Times’ 3000 word smear-job on Senator McCain. I’d be angry if it weren’t so typical. Everyone should read it just to see how lame the charges are, but if you don’t feel like it, I’ll summarize for you: an unnamed number of unnamed people “affiliated” with McCain’s organization were concerned that he and a 40-year-old female lobbyist were “too close.” No facts of any kind are offered in supports of these concerns.
This takes up a pretty small portion of the overall story, which is mostly an attempt to make McCain’s effects on behalf of campaign reform and other ethical issues appear to be either self-serving or hypocritical.
The institutional character of the Times is a little like the heart of the audience it serves: very insular and out of touch with most of the country. The story will play well on the upper west side and among Bennington, Bard and Brandeis grads everywhere. This has been a pretty uplifting election so far; I was hoping the spirit of it might have infected the media, as well, but the Times must have gotten its inoculation against decency.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
The Washington Post also has a story on it, from their own reporters:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002898.html?hpid=topnews?hpid=topnews
Sorry, better formated:
Read it here
I read the NY Times and Washington Post articles. These charges are so vague and old that it is hard to give them any credence. In fact it appears that McCain has avoided this person for almost 9 years now. Unless the newspapers can identify anything that is more substantial and more current I do not think anything should be made of this. The timing of this is suspicious. Are we now going to hear about all the candidates and their interactions with lobbyists? We should focus on more important issues, not this poor attempt at investigative journalism.
What could the NYT have been thinking? This is a 9 year-old story that wasn't much when it was fresh. At most, it sounds like this lobbyist was shopping her "connections" (nod, nod, wink wink) to McCain and his committee to Telecom companies when the connection may have been only in her head or non-existent. What a horrible story. The only person happy about it is Michelle Obama.
You are what you eat. I read the NY Times, listen to NPR and the BBC World Service. I find the world view of these tend to collaborate each other.
What the article in focus does mention beyond its new news subject is the Keating Five imbroglio. The article could have merit if in fact he did favors with a lobbyist after the lesson learned from the scandal. Timing aside, if this is evidence of hypocrisy, the electorate should know. Let us not forget that all candidates are politicians. The article does mention how aspiring pols trend to cozy up to powerful people. As to the actual timing of the article; this will be the subject of tomorrow's news.
Post a Comment