HAIL TO THE N.Y. TIMES
HAIL TO THE N.Y. TIMES — THEY DID SOMETHING THAT JOHN McCAIN HAS BEEN UNABLE TO DO. WHAT’S THAT? BRING CONSERVATIVES BACK INTO THE FOLD!
By
Ken Eliasberg
I grew up in New York, and, while I rarely read the N.Y. Times, I had great respect for its journalistic credentials. Indeed, the N.Y. Times was, until the last decade or two, the gold standard of journalism. In passing I need to point out why I rarely read it — there was just too much to read; most of which, while excellent, was more than I needed to explore. I grew up with the Herald Tribune, the Time’s competitor and my father’s choice of morning newspaper (the New York Post was his evening choice). Why? Because it was commuter worthy. That is, since we commuted from Manhattan’s suburbs via the train, we could complete the Trib in the time it took to commute. The Times, on the other hand, not only printed all the news that was fit to print, but it seemed to print all the news there was to print, more than you could ever use, let alone be interested in. Also, it seemed to weigh about 25 pounds; I once joked to a friend that it should be sold with an accompanying athletic supporter to avoid contracting a hernia for just having to carry it around.
But its journalistic excellence was incontestable. That’s why it almost hurts me to equate the Times with yellow journalism. I say “almost” because they have given me time to prepare myself for reaching this conclusion. That is, they have been on the downhill slope for a couple of decades now, becoming little more, from a political point of view, than a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. But their recent attack on John McCain, while no surprise in the sense that they sought to sabotage McCain, went well beyond acceptable journalistic limits. Why? Because they sought to torpedo McCain through inference, suggestion, innuendo, etc. not only with completely unsourced material, but unsourced material that did not come close to the conclusion that the Times was endeavoring to infer, i.e. that John McCain engaged in any inappropriate conduct. Proximity to an admitted friend in a public place is certainly normal behavior. Moreover, there is no indication that he ever used his office to favor this friend. So where’s the beef?
But, forgive me, I get ahead of myself, what was the drift of the Times column? They asserted that unnamed sources who were allegedly professionally close to McCain thought that this woman —Vicki Iseman, a D.C. lobbyist - was spending too much time in too close a proximity to the Senator, i.e. it was all about the “appearance” of impropriety, not any act of impropriety. And, as a consequence, they advised the Senator to chill, i.e. to distance himself from this individual which, apparently, he did. In short, there is no indication that the Senatorengaged in any wrongdoing , of either a sexual or professional nature.
Then why publish the piece at this time; indeed, why publish it at all? The answer to the second question is obvious — to hurt John McCain. And the answer to the first question is equally obvious; this time is the perfect time if you wish to maximize damage to John McCain since he appears to have locked up the Republican presidential nomination and therefore the perfect time to withdraw what appeared to be your support for McCain.
Please don’t misunderstand, I’m fine with going after McCain — this is the political season, and it’s not only understandable to go after your adversary (even if he formerly appeared to be your friend and even if you’re supposed to be a non partisan journal), it’s the order of the day. However, that said, this is really a disgusting effort to damage someone with nothing more than an inference, an inference that is not only unsourced but does not lead to the conclusion that you want the reader to buy in to, i.e. that John McCain did something improper.
Can you see the Times going after Obama with something as thin as this garbage? There would be an uproar that would almost lead to the Times having to close its doors.
That said, there are several good things that can, and I believe will, come out of this unfortunate bit of yellow journalism:
It is really ticking off conservatives, a group who were having a great deal of difficulty in supporting McCain, let alone coming to his defense. This gesture will remind conservatives who the real enemy is, and it ain’t John McCain.
It happened so far in advance of the election that Republicans
will have more than enough time to heal their intra party wounds, come together, and close ranks behind their candidate, and
Perhaps it will remind John McCain that his buddies on the left
cannot be trusted, and, as a consequence, to be a bit more prudent in
selecting persons or factions with which to align himself. That is,
McCain’s lesson in this regard is that a friend on the left, if a friend
at all, is never more than a “fair weather friend.”
The Times may be able to salvage some small measure of journalistic integrity by virtue of a column by its “public editor,” Clark Hoyt, entitled What That McCain Article Didn’t Say which graced its online pages on Feb. 24th. In it Mr. Hoyt, after reviewing the earlier damaging column, made this observation: “But what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed.” Amen to that. However, while commendable, it is hardly enough to bail the Times out for this outrageous attack on Senator McCain.
In all events, I strongly believe that this N.Y. Times piece will, in the long run, be a great benefit to McCain, in particular, and the Republican cause in general.