Is It News?

Let’s be clear about what the New York Times reported on Thursday about John McCain.

The Times DID report that two members of McCain’s inner circle were concerned enough about the closeness of his relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, and specifically the possibility that the relationship had become “romantic” in nature, that they confronted the Senator about it. The Times DID say that both sources told substantially the same story, independently, and that they said McCain agreed that it would be best if he distanced himself from Iseman. The Times also DID report that McCain had done the kind of favors for Iseman and her clients that Senators often do for lobbyists with whom they have close working relationships – favors that are definitely not illegal, probably not unethical, and sometimes not very democratic. The Times also DID note that Senator McCain has made his career on honest, ethical behavior in public service. Finally, the Times DID contextualize the report in a story about McCain’s self-confidence about his own ethical purity desensitizing him to situations when he may not be acting in a purely ethical manner.

The Times DID NOT report that McCain has ever been in a romantic relationship with Iseman, or that he has done anything improper or unethical for her or any of her clients.

Was it responsible for the Times to report the story? What is the paper’s responsibility to prevent the some-would-say inevitable impression that McCain had done something inappropriate?

I think it’s news. John McCain has staked his claim to the presidency on a reputation for scrupulous honesty – on his uncorruptability, in a semi-corrupt city, under the corrupting wave of special interest money that floods our politics. If two of his staffers independently say that they were concerned that McCain had an improper relationship with a lobbyist, and if he did even garden-variety favors for that same lobbyist, that’s news. If readers infer that he had an extra-marital romantic relationship with that same lobbyist, then that is simply what facts suggest to some may be the case, and it’s not what the Times is responsible for. It is not what the Times reported. It is news, not because it’s news that politicians have sex with more than one person (that’s news, but it shouldn’t be), but because doing political favors for a lobbyist who also happens to be a woman with whom you are in a romantic relationship is a thing that the people who you are asking to vote for you for President may want to use to make their decision, especially when it goes to the heart of what you say is your biggest qualification for the job. Again, the Times DID NOT report that, but if the facts – facts that McCain himself disputes but two independent credible sources verify – suggest it as a possibility, so be it. It’s responsible journalism from the Times.

What’s really interesting, though, is that McCain gave the story legs. He didn’t have to fire back, but he did, saying that the Times was “lying.” Why didn’t he just soft-peddle, perhaps saying “yeah, I’m friends with this woman who also happens to be a lobbyist, and I didn’t do anything improper at any time, and I don’t really think it’s news?” Perhaps because the GOP is like one big hunting party, and the Times is like a dove that everyone on the Right can shoot at together, and then, hand in hand, they can walk over to the dead dove and pull an olive branch from its mouth and begin to rally around John McCain for President.