Journalism By Insinuation

Appearing on CNN's "Late Edition," Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty called the New York Times slanderous hatchet job on John McCain "journalism by innuendo."

In the Sydney Morning Herald Paul Sheehan writes "Anatomy of a Smear," in which he makes Governor Pawlenty's point dissecting the Times slander, highlighting each of the 54 points where the Times manipulated the narrative to support the insinuation in the Times headline and the opening paragraphs, regardless of the facts. Here's a sample:

"William Black, one of the banking regulators the senator met with, argued that Mrs. McCain's investment with Mr. Keating created an obvious conflict of interest for her husband. (Mr. McCain had said a prenuptial agreement divided the couple's assets.) He should not be able to "put this behind him," Mr. Black said. "It sullied his integrity."

[23. Rather than quote the official report into this matter, the Times quotes Mr Black, a tangential figure, as the only authority worth quoting.]

[. . .]

"He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman. In an embarrassing turn for the campaign, news reports invoked the Keating scandal, once again raising questions about intervening for a patron.

[51. Omitted here is that McCain did not seek to influence the Commission on how to make a decision, but merely urged them to make one. This was impatient, but not unethical.]

Mr. McCain's aides released all of his letters to the F.C.C. to dispel accusations of favouritism, and aides said the campaign had properly accounted for four trips on the Paxson plane. But ...

[52. For the seventh time, the story undermines a positive fact with the immediate qualification of "but".]

" ... the campaign did not report the flight with Ms. Iseman. Mr. McCain's advisers say he was not required to disclose the flight, but ethics lawyers ...

[53. Anonymous and negative attribution number 13.]

I encourage you to examine all 54 instances of manipulation.

The Times also took a hit from their Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, "the [Times'] readers' representative," who monitors the paper's "journalistic practices."

The article was notable for what it did not say: It did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately — an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad. And it did not say whether Weaver, the only on-the-record source, believed there was a romance. The Times did not offer independent proof, like the text messages between Detroit’s mayor and a female aide that The Detroit Free Press disclosed recently, or the photograph of Donna Rice sitting on Gary Hart’s lap.

It was not for want of trying. Four highly respected reporters in the Washington bureau worked for months on the story and were pressed repeatedly to get sources on the record and to find documentary evidence like e-mail.

Hoyt concluded, "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."

That is exactly the approach the Times used when similar "unsubstantiated rumors" about John Kerry were making the rounds in 2004.

On February 17, 2004, on page A-19, the Times ran a 434-word piece by reporter Jim Rutenberg, one of the four reporters on the Times hatchet job against McCain. The rumor had a "vibrant life on the Internet," but not in the New York Times. You can read all 434 words at NewsBusters.

Continuing in the disparate treatment of McCain, the Times reported McCain's denial of front-page hatchet job on page A20.

Lanny Davis, who served as special counsel to President Clinton between 1996 and 1998 and in that position acted as the White House spokesman for various congressional campaign-finance investigations and other “scandal” allegations against the Clinton administration, is also critical of the Times:

Bottom line: What was omitted from both the Times and the Post stories was that what I wanted Sen. McCain to do, he refused to do. And he did so out of a concern of appearances of impropriety. That is a fact.

[. . .]

I then learned that Sen. McCain and his staff were not comfortable with mentioning the economic danger to WQED, even if Sen. McCain went on to state in the letter that he took no position on the merits of the decision. I was told Sen. McCain was only willing to send a letter with a “vanilla” status inquiry, together with a request that the matter be handled as expeditiously as possible (or words to that effect) — i.e., taking no position whatsoever on the merits of approval or disapproval of the WQED/WQEX-Cornerstone-Paxson transactions.

The letter that Sen. McCain sent, dated Nov. 17, 1999, to then-FCC Chairman Bill Kennard expressed “concern about the Commission’s continuing failure to act on the pending applications for assignment of the licenses” after two years, and went on to say: “This letter is not written to secure a favorable resolution for any party on any substantive issue pending before the Commission.” Subsequently, on Dec. 10, 1999, Sen. McCain sent a copy of that letter to the four other commissioners, asking each to advise him on whether they had already acted on the matter and then stating in part: “The sole purpose of this request is to secure final action on a matter that has now been pending for over two years. I emphasize that my purpose is not to suggest in any way how you should vote — merely that you vote.”

The final outcome of all this, ironically, was that neither the Cornerstone nor the Paxson deal ever got closed. Cornerstone backed out because the FCC imposed too many conditions on the transaction, which Cornerstone believed discriminated against them as a religious organization.

Another fact not included in the Times’s or Post’s accounts: Mr. Paxson, the individual cited in both stories as engaging a lobbyist to help get his purchase of Cornerstone’s channel approved as part of the three-way transaction, failed to get what he wanted because this deal did not close.

Opponents of the transaction from a Georgetown University legal clinic filed a complaint with the FCC alleging that McCain’s letter violated the ex parte rules. The FCC investigated the matter and found no violation by Sen. McCain. That fact was also omitted, for whatever reason, from both the Times and the Post stories.

That doesn't exactly sound like what the Times printed does it?

As if that isn't enough, Chris Matthews, not exactly a card carrying member of the vast right wing conspiracy, says the Times failed to comply with the paper's own rules regarding anonymous sources.

Noted Democratic attorney Robert Bennett, who represents Senator McCain, calls the Times' "non story" a "hatchet job."

This is so pathetic. The New York Times holds a story for months, endorses McCain to be the Republican Presidential nominee, and when he becomes the presumptive nominee the so-called newspaper publishes a gutter story insinuating that Senator McCain has engaged in some sort of impropriety.