Media love affiar with John McCain officially over

Not surprising. Bennet cleared McCain in the Keating 5 scandal. He and McCain have a long history and friendship.

Bennet's about to be on the Shawn Hannity show about the matter.

A lot of people are viewing this as a lame attempt for the NYT to try to be relevant and stop the hemmorhaging of subscribers.

And the New Republic steps in and points out that the story is unsubstantiated crap...

If you consider unsourced, uncorroborated smear as represented by this piece to be "good, solid journalism", then you give the rest of us *VERY* good reason to doubt your competence and ethics as a journalist.

McCain already busted that with his transparent pandering in the primaries.

I've never known McCain to be big on the "family values" rhetoric so I don't really care.

"SOLID JOURNALISM"?!!?!???!?

That's the funniest shit I've read in WEEKS!!!!

A hearsay story with no evidence that can be verified, that starts falling apart before the ink gets dry, and about a guy that the very same paper ENDORSED just a couple of weeks ago!

A story which has generated more blowback against the paper itself than against McCain and which does nothing at all but re-enforce the widely held perception that the so-called "liberal media" will print any flimsy piece of drek and not only that but will sit on the story until they think they can get the maximum millage out of it.

And don't whine and say they have printed negative pieces about Hillary...it's the PERCEPTION that it's a hit piece...a perception everything about this story re-enforces.


THIS is what passes for "solid journalism"?

Dan Rather must be so proud.

"Darmok! His eyes open!"


That's the problem with ego - it blinds you to that which in any other setting would be staggeringly obvious.

JM got sucked in and bullshitted into believing they really liked him - one satisfaction a conservative can take from here on out is watching Johnny get hip to reality.

Dunno what HE is saying - but what I am saying is that the story is unsubstantial fluff that other reporters can't verify with the suppose sources. It's a boat load of implication and inference with nothing but a couple of hearsay sources to back it up and even the sources they cite say: "we were worried about the APPEARANCE of impropriety."

I don't mean to so callously disregard "inside information" but it is manifestly obvious to even the most casual observer that media heavyweights, of whatever political leanings (and don't even START to argue they have none) advance those political leanings by the manipulations of what stories they peruse, which they do not, and the manner and timing in which they are presented.
It is as obvious as the rising of the sun.

I realize there is probably some unwritten rule that you guys don't admit such things to the great unwashed...hell, maybe you have all willfully blinded yourselves to it for the sake of your conscious.

But the vast majority of Americans have figured out that it's true.

It's interesting... of everything McCain is denying about this story, the one thing he's not denying is that he had an affair with Ms. Iseman.

Of course, he IS denying that anyone's ever said he's betrayed the public trust, which is demonstrably false.

Actually, he HAS denied there being an affair with Iseman.

You spelled "affair" wrong you idiotic douchebag.

Just kidding. But you did spell it wrong.

Is there another part of his denial I'm not seeing?

Um, from the very article you yourself posted at the beginning of this thread:

In every story I have read on this, both he and she have stated there never was anything between them. Furthermore, those "reporting" it have admitted there is nothing substantial to back up their claims, either.

Of course, that is, apparently, what makes "good, solid journalism" for Harmon Bokai. I suppose that by that standard, the claims of the clown who says he used drugs and had sex with Barak Obama is also "good, solid journalism."

Nah, it's just HB showing his own standards, and how little he understands about what "good, solid journalism" really is...

No, it isn't.

No names.

No corroboration.


This is pretty shoddy work, even for the NYT (which is a shell of its former journalistic self).

The weekly paper in my small home town practices better journalism than this.

It's not what my newswriting instructor would call "fully posessed of the 5 W's..."

Ok....ok...it wasn't eight years that they sat on this story. However we know they did sit on the story in December before they formally endorsed him. Since we know it is a shoddy piece of work the question is why did they not let it fly in December? Supposedly according to the news (I just got home so I haven't found a source yet) the author of the article was pissed they didn't run it in December.

Why formally endorse him and then run a hit piece? A crappy transparent hit piece at that.....

The excuse that they had to nail things down is an outrageous lie given how shitty the article currently is.

Which, according to the NYT, means they are having an affair.

OMG! You're right!

^ Hey, you two, you're making progress towards a brand new career. That's good, solid journalism you're doing there!

I haz a digree in jernalizm. Kan u tel?

This is even better than Rathergate. Because here, if the NYT looks bad, I win. If McCain looks bad...I win. If they BOTH look bad--double-plus good!

It seems that McCain is still lying about this. Either that, or he's senile.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505

It sort of boggles the mind that a number of people seem to want better corroboration than McCain himself. While the sourcing on the affair was thin, the story isn't about the alleged affair; it's about Mr. Straight-Talk-Can't-Be-Bought doing favors for lobbyists and having a direct line to the special interests he says he ignores. The story is quite solid on those counts.

And as for the alleged affair, who cares? McCain's long been known to be a philandering skeeze, and if his mistress number 1/wife number 2 and constituents don't mind then I don't know why anyone else should.

I have a degree in nursing and the whole thing looks like ass to me.

I have a degree in nursing and the whole thing looks like ass to me.

The NY Times ombudsman agrees with you!

Meh! I don't care if he dipped his wick with Vicky Iseman. The other stuff...