I feel like today's McCain coverage (original story and response) in the New York Times is along the lines of the obligatory "here's our dirt file on this guy" story. They lay out all the questionable things McCain has done in his time in Washington, including his involvement with Charles Keating and the savings and loan scandal (moldy old news, most people forgot or never knew about)- which he has apologized repeatedly for and even went against his party to enact legislation to ensure a more ethical congress. Now, I'm not saying that the public has no right to know all of this (it's no secret, anyway, it was one of the biggest stories of the 1980s and ruined the careers of three senators) nor am I saying he came out of it totally scot-free. But I take issue with the appearance that the Times felt they needed to make this "dirt story" a little newsier by pegging it to an alleged ("alleged" might be doing it too much justice) affair with a lobbyist. Never mind both he and she are denying it ever happened, and no one has come out and said that they saw the two romantically engaged.
What I especially found interesting in the aftermath of this story was how much some commentators believe the story will have credence, just because it's in the Holy New York Times. Consider what was said in Poynter's Al's Morning Meeting , where he thoroughly dissects the coverage and Poynter's ethics column where they analyze how the story will play on the often more sensational airwaves.
Just imagine what Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, and any other member of the noise machine has to say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Just imagine what Nancy Grace, Bill O'Reilly, and any other member of the noise machine has to say."
I'm sure we'll get to hear all of that for the next few weeks, ad nauseum.
The Times needs to think about their public image before opening themselves up to attacks on their credibility like this.
The "scandal" they report is merely that it looks like there's a scandal.
Besides being flimsy and boring, it's a huge invitation for criticism, and the NYT should know better.
Tim - astute observation. Look at the reaction all over the place in the past few days. It's not only conservative commentators that are questioning whether the Times had the story nailed enough to run it the way they did. If you haven't seen it, check out the New Republic's website for a report on the behind-the-scenes take on the story unfolding.
Post a Comment