In McCain Saga, Newspaper Becomes A Story

After Story Suggesting Romantic Relationship Between John McCain And Lobbyist, Critics Question New York Times' Motivation

(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.

[Razzl]

We know that the right-wing propaganda machine was going to gear up against any story by the Times, so a lot of the criticism is just the usual noise from places we aren''t obligated to listen to. And the public has created a new standard for politicians since the Lewinsky scandal where their personal lives aren''t hypocritically examined for impurity on personal issues that ought to be private, so the public is reading all this superficially and thinking it crosses that line. It doesn''t, however, since the issue isn''t the affair, but the possible use of influence to help the lobbyist, as well as the Times'' obligation to report the story when the right facts line up.

If McCain is smart in reading the reactions he''ll deny the influence rather than deny the affair, unless it didn''t really happen, which I''m not believing at this point. The public has carved out a wide latitude for personal marital behavior for the post-Clinton world that will save him if he doesn''t overreach plausible deniability. And the Times should take a chapter from Obama''s book and not even acknowledge a problem since their readership trusts them and that''s all that matters when your enemies lack the power to materially hurt you...

[samthetvcat]

It''s almost impossible to not lose respect for anybody who''s focusing their ire on the NYT''s role in running this story rather than trying to figure out who''s the unnamed informant.

How do you argue that you stand for denouncing rushing to judgment when that whole line of argument rushes to the judgment that the story is false?

That''s a totally self-serving angle trying to be passed as principle when it is anything but. An objective criticism would add a caveat that it may be true and it may not be, and that based on the evidence it looks like there might have been something there but without more you can''t say for sure so therefore they choose to give McCain the benefit of the doubt out of loyalty as a republican. Repubs are free to stand by their guy, but claiming they''re acting in then name of truth and integrity makes me puke.

[samthetvcat]

lol - good points razzl

[infidel_us]

OMG....not the NYT''s motivation!?!!? Why, everyone with half a brain knows they are objective, unbiased journalists! BAARF!

[jumkey]

Yeah, because Republicans were so concerned when it was Bill Clinton being attacked by the press.

What hypocrites conservatives are.

Is the story true? Seems to be to me.
Is it pertinent? Ask Bill Clinton. That was enough for McCain had his friends to impeach him.

Conservatives ALWAYS attack the messenger when caught. Always.

[jumkey]

And ON CUE the conservative apologist and liar Infidel_US arrives to dismiss the same story that he screamed from the rooftops made Clinton unfit to be president.

Brilliant.

[fuzzybear9]

Hello America

Fuzzy did you hear the News ? please Fuzzy what should we do ?

A man is innocent until proven guilty.
A senator is always Guilty until proven innocent.
and then there is the no lo contendor grey area.

If this was chapiquitic we all would have no doubts
as to the veracity of the Accusations,
If this was the Mens restroom in the Minneapolis Airport we would have No Lo Contender.

Let me just say that the New York Times is a very respectible Newspaper of many years of dedicated Journalism, professional editorial selection with few errors in their publication.
as well as the Washington Post that has our utmost
respect.

Now as to Ms. Vicki Iseman she sounds like a very real person, with very real motives as a Lobbyist.
Iseman is that Jewish ?
anyway
now you say Fuzzy who shall we pick a reformed cocaine addict Senator or a Moral Majority Senator ?

let me just say rather than pointing fingers
lets just say that integrity in our goverment seems to be constantly wayning ,
Wayning?
anyway
let us be more careful in the future at the selection
of good people to represent us.
A man that is unfaithful to his Wife would think nothing of betraying his country. so this is not just a small indescretion, but a matter of High Crimes and Misdimenors.
Thats a Fuzzy Quote you can publish that in the Readers Digest if you Like.

Sincerely your allwise and Merciful Bear
Fuzzy,
ps. note I didn`t make any vulgar inuendo`s
I think I did good.

[hamiltongrad]

So obviously biased.
...............It will galvanize the Repubicans to back McCain.
The NYT is disgusting.

[j-whitman]

Waterbord him

[boatdocster]

dogsoul

To be fair, Newt Gingrich, who crucified Clinton, was doing the very same things (or more) with his female aide while his wife was in the hospital will an illnesses. Busting Bill in public while working his aide in private! LOL

Perhaps what you meant to say is almost all politicians break the rules while touting family values and religion, regardless of party affiliation... You could count the clean ones on 1 hand!

[lilvinnyb]

So the times whoe story is about something that "MAY" have happened. I cant believe this....throw the accusation out and let him deny it. Is this what news has become.

Whats to stop them from printing a story that says "Obama MAY have robbed a bank".

[mcvet]

And yet in THIS case where you have a liberal rag like the Times saying that some of McCain''''s staff had some suspicions that an affair might be perceived... and liberals are all about sinking him with it...

yeah... conservative are SUCH hypocrites...

Liberals - do as we say, not as we do


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by dogsoul at 03:54 PM : Feb 21, 2008
+ report abuse

I don''t get it! Are you nazi''s saying We the People shouldn''t know about the aids to this senator going to this PAID lobbist and outright ASKING her to back off and to get lost? Now COMMON SENSE, something you freaks have never had, says there MUST have been something going on for them to go to her with this request. But I guess to a Nazi, the chance to attack the free press outweighs any common sense now doesn''t it? Sieg Heil Y''all. ROFLMAO

[mcvet]

So the times whoe story is about something that "MAY" have happened. I cant believe this....throw the accusation out and let him deny it. Is this what news has become.

Whats to stop them from printing a story that says "Obama MAY have robbed a bank".




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by lilvinnyb at 04:15 PM : Feb 21, 2008
+ report abuse

There is NO question the Aids to this Senator went to this PAID Lobbist and "requested" she get lost. There''s NO MAY in that and we know from history that the good senator has had his problems with this. You can MAY it all you want but when the Fascist attack the media there is ALWAYS a story to be heard. This has just started... let''s see what other shoe drops. Sieg Heil McGoo!

[fuzzybear9]

Hello America

The real tragedy here is the upcoming generation
of young people, the Junior High and High School
age students that have to be constantly exposed to this type of rhetoric and talk while sitting in American Goverment Class.
What a shame.
I just hope they will not immitate the failures of the present.
Young People maintain High aspirations and Ideals for yourselves and goverment even when none is apparent.

Sincerely Pulling for you Bear
Fuzzy

[luigi999-2009]

The New York Times should be shut down and their windows shuttered.

[dogsoul]

Yeah right McVet - I always tune out those retarded liberal types who can''t go three words without some kind of Nazi Hitler reference... oh yeah, and they love to pepper in the word ''fascists'' too...

You''re a loser and your comments are to be ignored

btw - liberals are embarassed by you two

so let the adults talk honey... go play with your toys

[dogsoul]

Well, I agree BOTH parties have their fair share of *** scandals... but if you wanna talk about hypocrites - when it''s a Republican caught in some kind of *** scandal - he''s got to take his lumps... there''s no making excuses for him - no saying that it''s a private matter - no saying that everyone does it (especially JFK) - no saying it''s irrelevant to the job so who cares - he''s gotta sleep in whatever bed he''s made...

Not so with Democrats - ALL of the above mentioned excuses are employed - in fact, if he comes out as ''A Gay American'' while standing next to his utterly betrayed, humiliated & yet smiling wife... heck, liberals will give HIM a standing ovation!

Liberals - what''s the fun of being us if you can''t have it both ways?

[walt1944-2009]

There is an old saying: No matter how big or small, important of not, wealthy or poor, EVERYONE passes GAS the same way you do!!!!!!!

Both sides of the aisle are guilty of shady things no matter how saintly they say they are. You can''t tell me that somone with power and influence isn''t going to use their station in life in a "squeeky clean" manner to get what THEY want. After all some of our "greatest" presidents turned out to be something else in private.

One thinks about Richard "the Trickster" Nixon but didn''t that favorite GOP president of "Happy Days", Dwight Isenhower have a fling or two? And what about JFK, who turned the Secret Service into his own pimping service?

All you can hope is that someone makes it into the Oval Office who has a conscience, knows right from wrong, and when to keep his fly zipped!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!
sig heil, McCain???

[lilvinnyb]

Good, the Aid told her to "get lost"....thats a good thing. And that makes a news story.

Youre proud African American Facist!!!! :).

[dogsoul]

"I just hope they will not immitate the failures of the present. Young People maintain High aspirations and Ideals for yourselves and goverment even when none is apparent."

Present? The absolute WORST generation America has (and hopefully will) EVER see are the baby boomers... ya know, the forebearers of liberalism. They are the poison that has infected this nation.

I don''t think this country will improve until every single one of them is finally in the ground where they belong...

Liberals - this too shall pass

[lilvinnyb]

Dont worry though. if its true im sure Mccain will Step aside, unlike the liberals who wear wrongdoing on their shoulder like a badge of honor. I bet william jefferson is still buying lunch with the 90,000 dollars in his freezer.

Im proud to say that when the GOP step is it,,,they do take care of their own. When the democratic congressman ACTUALLY SLEPT with a page...they gave him a standing ovation.

[mttop2]

It was less than a month ago that the NYT endorsed McCain in NY primary. So the NYT endorsed McCain even though they had knowledge of an alleged affair and of an alleged favor to a lobbyist.

[denn034]

The New York Times is a liberal rag so, tearing down McCain is to be expected. That newspapers history of inaccurate and biased reporting is legendary and shameful. It should be put out of business. Period!

[questionnews]

NYT is to the left what Fox News is to the right. You don''t read the NYTs or watch Fox news to get information, you read & watch to get propagana that reassures you that the other side are losers. If you actually believe that you receiving unbiased "news" then consider yourself suckered. Fish On!!!

[donbl1]

Once again the NYT''s steps in it.....

You would think they would learn....

Maybe, they are trying to discourage Newscorp from pursueing them which has been rumored for some time. Or,,,,, encourage Newscorp. I guess it could go either way.

[secundus2]

Unnamed sources? No corroboration from the woman allegedly involved? My spouse (a reporter) was once asked to go to jail to protect a "source" that the newspaper didn''t have (one newsman copied from another''s account w/o interviewing the source)! Claim that the 1st amendment protects you, and we''ll make you front page news, the media corporation''s lawyers said. Often the "freedom of the press" is the freedom to do slipshod work and hide behind a constitutional provision never intended to protect lousy reporting.

[j-whitman]

donbl1,,,,, Have you read the NYT''s 4 pg article ?? It doesn''t point out anything false about McCain --- He''s always been linked to lobbyists & still is.

[questionnews]

Who is making the NYT the story? The Reicht winged Fascist Slander machine, thats who! No other group in US history has been so dishonest in its reporting than the Reicht winged Fascist Slander machine.

Posted by neoconism at 05:06 PM : Feb 21, 2008


Wow, you sound like a crip labeling a blood as a bad person. Both parties are equally corrupt. But, much as gangbangers are want to believe, extremist delude themselves into thinking that their group is the good guys.

[fuzzybear9]

Hello Fellow Citizen

``
Unnamed sources? No corroboration from the woman allegedly involved? My spouse (a reporter) was once asked to go to jail to protect a "source" that the newspaper didn''''t have (one newsman copied from another''''s account w/o interviewing the source)! Claim that the 1st amendment protects you, and we''''ll make you front page news, the media corporation''''s lawyers said. Often the "freedom of the press" is the freedom to do slipshod work and hide behind a constitutional provision never intended to protect lousy reporting.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by secundus2 at 05:09 PM : Feb 21, 2008
``

well yes and no
but lets just go back a few years.
remember when none of us wanted to believe
somebudy and Burnstein on the Washington Post
whent hey broke the news on Richard Nixon ?
so ya I guess there is always the possibilty some
reporter might get carried away.
But would we want Journalist not to even try ?
I don`t think so, even if they get it wrong every so often.

Sincerely checking out Bear
Fuzzy
Journalist not

[j-whitman]

donbl1,,,, McCain sure shouldn''t be denying any of this -- He''s just digging himself a bigger hole.

[questionnews]

Posted by Questionnews
extremist delude themselves into thinking that their group is the good guys.

A perfect description for todays GOP Coalition of Republicons, RINOs, Southerners, Evangelicals, Mormons, and used car salesmen.

Posted by neoconism at 05:20 PM : Feb 21, 2008


And you don''t view yourself as an extremist??

"Above all else, to thy own self be true."

Shakespeare

[eatonmts]

To think that the NYT does not have motive here is myopic. There is clearly an intent to inflict harm on the Republican front-runners reputation. Do you suppose this info was unavailable to NYT when they endorsed McCain''s candidacy? NYT was, is, and shall always be leftist, anti-christian, anti-morality, pro-anything counter to American values. It''s just expected... It''s just comedy... Laugh and throw the rag away.

[eatonmts]

To think that the NYT does not have motive here is myopic. There is clearly an intent to inflict harm on the Republican front-runners reputation. Do you suppose this info was unavailable to NYT when they endorsed McCain''s candidacy? NYT was, is, and shall always be leftist, anti-christian, anti-morality, pro-anything counter to American values. It''s just expected... It''s just comedy... Laugh and throw the rag away.

[fuzzybear9]

Hello Fellow Citizens

I think every Journalist has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

we shouldn`t shoot the messenger boy just because we don`t like the News !

To the New york Times,
I say report away if your wrong in you will never be believed again.
if your right thank you for taking the corrageous step.
if your kinda right and kinda wrong then thanks again cause useually where there is smoke there is usually fire.
if your kinda wrong and kinda right then well you should check your sources more closely but keep up the good work

Sincerely checking out and almost gone Bear
Fuzzy

[eatonmts]

To think that the NYT does not have motive here is myopic. There is clearly an intent to inflict harm on the Republican front-runners reputation. Do you suppose this info was unavailable to NYT when they endorsed McCain''s candidacy? NYT was, is, and shall always be leftist, anti-christian, anti-morality, pro-anything counter to American values. It''s just expected... It''s just comedy... Laugh and throw the rag away.

[jn122736]

The absolute WORST generation America has (and hopefully will) EVER see are the baby boomers... ya know, the forebearers of liberalism. They are the poison that has infected this nation.

I don''''t think this country will improve until every single one of them is finally in the ground where they belong...

Liberals - this too shall pass
Posted by dogsoul at 04:32 PM : Feb 21, 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any/all natural-born American citizen/s; were born either before 1945 and actually helped spawn the baby-boomers, born between 1945 and 1965 and are, themselves, boomer-boomers, or were born after 1965 and are direct products of baby-boomers.

I%u2019m curious as to which category you fit into.

[eatonmts]

To think that the NYT does not have motive here is myopic. There is clearly an intent to inflict harm on the Republican front-runners reputation. Do you suppose this info was unavailable to NYT when they endorsed McCain''s candidacy? NYT was, is, and shall always be leftist, anti-christian, anti-morality, pro-anything counter to American values. It''s just expected... It''s just comedy... Laugh and throw the rag away.

[hawksprings]

Why is this even a story?
It supposedly happened 8 years ago.
If "President" Clinton getting a BJ while he was IN office wasn''t a big deal to the Dembots and the Mainstream Media, then why is an alleged 8 year old affair any big deal?

Liberals are so inconistent. I guess that comes with having no morals or sense of right and wrong.

[eatonmts]

To think that the NYT does not have motive here is myopic. There is clearly an intent to inflict harm on the Republican front-runners reputation. Do you suppose this info was unavailable to NYT when they endorsed McCain''s candidacy? NYT was, is, and shall always be leftist, anti-christian, anti-morality, pro-anything counter to American values. It''s just expected... It''s just comedy... Laugh and throw the rag away.

[notblue]

neoconism, your hate filled perspctive of the world is utter nonsense, you sound like one of McVet''s Nazi youth. Do truly beleive the crapp you spew? As far as 911, are you oldenough to remeber any attacks by the militants prior to that one? You do understand that the first bombing of the twin towers was before the hated Bush and Iraq, not counting attacks for 3 decades prior to that. If you were to know and understand the true and complete history of those attacks you would come to the realization your blather is nonsensical.

[eatonmts]

To think that the NYT does not have motive here is myopic. There is clearly an intent to inflict harm on the Republican front-runners reputation. Do you suppose this info was unavailable to NYT when they endorsed McCain''s candidacy? NYT was, is, and shall always be leftist, anti-Christian, anti-morality, pro-anything counter to American values. It''s just expected... It''s just comedy... Laugh and throw the rag away.

[questionnews]

I say report away if your wrong in you will never be believed again.
if your right thank you for taking the corrageous step.
if your kinda right and kinda wrong then thanks again cause useually where there is smoke there is usually fire.
if your kinda wrong and kinda right then well you should check your sources more closely but keep up the good work

Sincerely checking out and almost gone Bear
Fuzzy

Posted by FuzzyBear9 at 05:38 PM : Feb 21, 2008


I think you just summerized Geraldo Rivera''s entire career in one paragragh.

[eatonmts]

To think that the NYT does not have motive here is myopic. There is clearly an intent to inflict harm on the Republican front-runners reputation. Do you suppose this info was unavailable to NYT when they endorsed McCain''s candidacy? NYT was, is, and shall always be leftist, anti-Christian, anti-morality, pro-anything counter to American values. It''s just expected... It''s just comedy... Laugh and throw the rag away.

[questionnews]

Just repeat the liberal mantra from the 1990''''s

"If it''''s consensual, it''''s OK"
"If it''''s consensual, it''''s OK"
"If it''''s consensual, it''''s OK" ... Ad Nauseum

Based on the 1990''''s, this should satisfy liberals

Unless, of course, liberals are hypocrits

Imagine that

.

Posted by mocaIeo at 05:48 PM : Feb 21, 2008


Careful, I think NAMBLA has a copywrite on that phrase.

[sgtrds]

There''s never a good time to run a story like this because whenever they do they''re going to be accused of trying to influence the campaign. If they ran it before New Hampshire they would have been vilified then too and if they ran it after the general election people would be complaining that it wasn''t run before. They''re going to be dam*ned by one group of people or another no matter what they do with it. Considering that with the voters short memory this will be a faded and half forgotten story by November they''re actually doing McCain a favor running it now instead of October.

[pilgrimsway-2009]

If there was a secret radical Muslim in the white house as president what would He CHANGE? Would He CHANGE the way to make it easy for terrorists to get into this country to over through this country? Would He CHANGE the laws for any of His kind? Would He hang out with those who supported tyranny? Would He impose martial law? Could He start unjust wars for His hidden ideology? Could His decisions CHANGE the course for America? Would He change your civil liberties? Last of all would He change your right to vote? Believe me when I say there are no one with hidden agenda%u2019s in this world! If there was a secret radical Muslim in the white house as president what would He CHANGE?

[three-o-six]

I accidentally clicked on the New York Times Web News Site %u2013 suddenly the whole room began to stink!

[three-o-six]

Yep - the New York Times - Ranks right up there with The Globe and The National Enquirer

[j-whitman]

pilgrimsway,,,,, Think about it -- If there was a secret radical Muslim in the white house as president --- He would be disguised as a conservative radical

[valentin73]

NY Times: You should ask Mrs. McCain if it''s alright for him to have been involved in a consensual affair. She seems to be supportive of her man 100%. Just look at all those newsphotos where McCain appears, and who would that lovely young lady standing next to him be? His wife! Of course, she doesn''t seem to mind one bit.
BTW: Doesn''t she have anything better to do with herself than look pretty for a campaign photo, donning the latest power fashions from Armani, Lauren and others???? What kind of message is she sending to the rest of American Women? Some of us ARE priveledge...........