In McCain Saga, Newspaper Becomes A Story

(CBS)  This story was written by CBSNews.com political reporter Brian Montopoli.

---

The New York Times' front-page story insinuating a past improper relationship between John McCain and a lobbyist whose clients had business before a powerful Senate committee once chaired by the Arizona senator has shaken up the presidential campaign.

It has also put the newspaper smack in the middle of a bourgeoning journalistic controversy, one being heavily discussed by McCain's campaign as well as independent observers.

The story suggested that the presumptive Republican nominee was involved in a romantic relationship eight years ago with a telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman. McCain at the time was chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

It stated that former top strategist John Weaver, as well as two unnamed former associates, intervened to keep McCain and Iseman apart out of fear that the perception of an inappropriate relationship could harm McCain's first presidential run. The associates, the story noted, were concerned not only about the image of the corruption-busting candidate's chumminess with a lobbyist, but were also "convinced the relationship had become romantic."

In a press conference this morning, McCain emphatically denied the story and criticized the Times for running it. Campaign advisor Charlie Black told Politico that the campaign would be "going to war" with the paper. Iseman has also denied a relationship, and her lobbying firm, Alcalde & Fay, said in a statement that it was "based upon the fantasies of a disgruntled former campaign employee."

Almost immediately after it appeared, critics assailed the Times for running the story - which the newspaper had been working on for several months - and for the timing of its release. McCain aide Mark Salter suggested to Time magazine that the decision to run the story now resulted from the Times becoming aware that the New Republic was working on a story of its own about internal strife in the Times over whether to run it.

"That sounds about right to me," a former senior Times journalist very familiar with the paper's deliberative process told CBSNews.com. "They would be terrified of people thinking they would be holding the story, for people to think they're soft."

"I think you've got a fair story about lobbyist influence and possibly being too close," the former Times staffer said. "But...any imputation of an affair is from unnamed sources, and that's foul play by the Times' own written standards. The Times' written standards require that they do not base negative accusations on unnamed sources except in very specialized cases."

The Times' standards on unnamed sources can be found here. They include this: "We do not grant anonymity to people who use it as cover for a personal or partisan attack."

Weaver, the only source quoted by name, said in a statement today that the Times was already aware that he had contacted Iseman with concerns that she was misrepresenting her ties with McCain when he was approached by the paper. "I informed the Times, in a written reply, that Ms. Iseman's comments about having strong ties to John's committee staff, personal staff and to him I felt were harmful and not true," he wrote. "And so I informed her and asked to to stop and desist."

Despite questions about how the story was presented, Mike Hoyt, editor of Columbia Journalism Review, said today that it appeared the Times had made the right call in running it.

"It's very difficult to prove an affair," Hoyt said. "You would want to be really slow to intimate that there was one if you're just speculating. But it seems to me that if top aides think there was an affair, and confronted [McCain and Iseman], and it's hooked to this other issue - she's a lobbyist with things she wants out of John McCain - when you add all that up together, it seems to me that it crosses the threshold into a story."

The Washington Post also ran a story on McCain and Iseman's relationship today, but did not include any suggestion of any romantic involvement. In a web chat this morning, Michael Shear, one of the two reporters who wrote the story, said it is "not for me to judge" whether the Times stepped over the line.

"I just want to be clear, especially in this day and age where a story like this becomes chatter on TV and everywhere, what the Post reported and what we didn't," Shear added.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[jegibbons]

Te Editor of the NY Times has backed away from the salcious McCain story like it was three week old dead fish.
Only the most radical Mc Cain haters will continue to proport this story contains even an ounce of truth.
The Times once again shoots themselves in the foot by pandering this kind of vicious gossip as news to cultivate their romance with the LOONEY LEFT!

This is not only bad jounalism. It places the blame for the open sore divisions in this country squarely where it belongs with the HATE CONSPIRATORS of the losing looney left!

[j-whitman]

No John,,, You are the story, not the newspaper ---- Lobby''s run your campaign & your office in the Senate

[kmccliment]

mahansen1 what are you talking about that John did so wrong? No other senator is making a big deal about it because, all have their own favorite pet lobbyist. That is the truth behind this story.

[mahansen1]

It''s the violation of Ethics as a Senator that matters - not the personal side
The personal aspect of this story is not as critical at this juncture, as is the possible ethics violations that are revealed in the NYT story - Clinton was impeached for lying about *** - This is a lot more serious, and should not be just let go, when this man could ultimately become president. NYT has a responsibility, not just to their readers, but to the country to follow through with this.

He should not be allowed to just do the "I DID NOT have *** with THAT woman" line, even though, that is not what is important in this whole expose....

[kmccliment]

Obama''''s First Book, "Dreams From My Father" (1995), before entering politics, that he had used marijuana and cocaine ("maybe a little blow"). He said he had not tried heroin because he did not like the pusher who was trying to sell it to him.

[kmccliment]

I guess when Nancy Reagan was preaching, "Just Say No", Obama was saying I need some Blow...

[alanrobisch]

the NYT is a liberal newspaper that wants to prevent any republican from winning. Its report on Mcain and the alleged affair was way out of bounds. It was badly sourced and was done to smear him and nothing else.

[vmcneal2]

This is a non-issue. John"no change" McCain is just another tired Republican with nothing new to say. He''ll try to play the Republican fear card but the American people won''t buy it this time.

[samthetvcat]

PPS Oh I didn''t phrase that right - I meant that if McCain brings up the moral outrage he''s going to look like a weenie given that Barack''s not stomping his foot and crying foul every time he gets dragged through the mud . . . and when it happens to him he REALLY has reason to complain but doesn''t . . .

[samthetvcat]

PS mbcsmith - also, McCain said the story was false because he hadn''t had a ''romantic relationship'' with that lobbist, Iseman. I don''t believe even he is claiming he didn''t have *** with her or that they didn''t take a flight together on the Paxson corporate jet, or that any of the rest didn''t occur.

BIG difference - it''s going to be awfully hard for him to claim his story was false, when the facts as reported in the NYT were actually accurate. I''m not sure, but I think the Fox facts were actually false . . . everything in competition is relative, so it''s hard for McCain to claim ''smear'' campaign against Barack and look like the bigger victim . . .