I'm supporting Barack Obama for President, and wouldn't vote for John McCain if he was squeakiest clean candidate in history. But I'm also a Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University in New York City, with a keen interest in wanting journalists to report with the highest ethical and professional standards to Americans, and I want those standards to apply to reporting about all candidates - whether I agree with their politics or not.
With that goal as my guide, I have to say that The New York Times needs named, on-the-record sources for its front-page story about John McCain possibly having a romantic entanglement with a lobbyist that caused his aides in 2000 to take action.
Unnamed sources have their role in journalism. But in a story of this magnitude, concerning someone who has all but received the Republican nomination for President, and whom the Times endorsed, the public interest requires real names of real sources. In their absence, the public is forced to rely on The New York Times' judgment, and, in a matter of this importance, the judgment of any news operation can never be good enough.
Why do Americans need to know the names of the Times' sources? Because the American people need to decide, based upon all possible evidence, whether the sources were telling the truth to The New York Times. Even if the sources weren't lying, we might learn, based on their position in the campaign, that they were not really in a position to know what was going on. Media other than the New York Times need to be able to look into what happened in 2000, and report their findings.
There is also a point to be made about the allegations themselves being unclear - or, if they are clear, not really indicative of any ethical breach. Did McCain actually have an affair with the lobbyist, or were the aides acting to make sure this didn't happen?
In a Presidential election, reporting should, if anything, be held to higher standards than usual. Although this story is certainly of great interest, it appears that The New York Times, if anything, adhered to lower standards than we might want it to bring to bear regarding sources and details.
6 comments:
The truth is why should people care if he had an affair or not. That's between him and his wife. I'm so sick of the nasty political tactics that have gone on. People praised Kennedy but he was probably the most falandering president ever. I just can't figure out if it was the Dem or Repub who leaked this story. Oh tonights lost is supposed to be great
I agree completely, Dawn!
And it's good to see that you have your priorities right - nothing trumps Lost! :)
(I guess the only really significant point about this McCain business is whether he was influenced by the lobbyist - not if they had an affair. I'd like to see more evidence from the Times that McCain did anything wrong on this influence issue.)
shame shame shame on the NY Times!
The article was clearly about McCain's judgment.
After being admonished for his role in the Keating affair he professed "clean government" and this article shows with appropriate references that he went on with "business as usual".
Flying with, dining with, attending functions with and being funded by a "Person" (let's drop the gender for a moment) that lobbies for the very industry his chairmanship oversees is NOT "clean government".
You are focusing on the sex issue, the article is much more than that and rightfully pointed out the contradictions in his rhetoric and his actions.
The Washington Post has a much better story on McCain, without the affair.
I think that by putting the affair front and center they obscured the real issue, which was whether McCain was as ethical as he says he is.
If for example this lobbyist DID use her influence to get contracts that's a great story that should be told. If not, why raise it as an issue?
I agree with James' answer to Peregrine.
I think that the only story of interest here is, as James says, whether McCain did things as a Senator that can be shown to be the result of lobbying.
The Times devoted little scrutiny to that issue, and instead offered a long history of McCain, capped with unsubstantiated innuendo about romantic feelings.
Poor reporting, plain and simple.
Post a Comment