NY TIMES USES ANONYMOUS SOURCES TO SMEAR MCCAIN

Jim Taricani

The NY Times ought to be ashamed of itself. It published a front page article about Senator John McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist, and asserted, by quoting anonymous sources, that McCain and the lobbyist may have been romantically involved.
Following the fiasco with former Times reporter Judy Miller and her biased reporing on the weapons of mass destruction supposedly being hidden by Saddam Hussein, the Times adopted a new policy on the use of anonymous sources. The paper said it would reduce the use of these sources, and when anonymous sources were used, there would be a parenthetical explanation about why the source couldn’t be quoted.
But the Times article on McCain simply says two campaign aides from the senator’s first presidential campaign in 2000 said they were “ concerned “ that the senator’s relationship with a powerful lobbyist might be romantic.
To make this assertion witihout demanding that the sources go on the record is shoddy, yellow journalism.
There is a time and place where the use of anonymous sources is necessary and warranted. But raising this type of scandalous allegation without attribution is dead wrong.
The rest of the Times story is fine. It raises serious questions about McCain’s relationship with this lobbyist that sometimes seems to contradict the senator’s self-procalimed reformer image.
But to raise the possiblity that McCain had an illicit romantic relationship based on two anonymous sources is shameful.
The lobbyist has denied that McCain did any favors for her, and the senator himself is holding a news conference this morning ( Thursday, February 21) to address the allegations in the story.
I atteneded a seminar with Bill Keller, the Executive Editor of the Times last summer, and he told the people there that he was determined to clean up the Times’ act, and be much more careful with the use of anonymous sources.
He flunked on this one.

Hey Jim:

Me thinks a firing is in order here. When selling papers becomes the highest priority the Times turns into just another National Enquirer.

Too bad.

SV

Hey Jim

1) Have you ever used anonymous sources????
2) Have you reviewed the most recent articles that show that McCain did NOT tell the truth in his response to the article...including a contradiction by himself in a prior deposition???

if this is a “blog” are you ever going to respond to others that are commenting? if not, let’s close this down....

The Times story, front page, above the fold was what it was.  Now it’s taking on a life of its own. Thanks to the spin other journalists are putting on it. I think you’re wrong, Jim, to write that the article reported that McCain staffers were “ concerned “ about the “ relationship “ being romantic. I read the article a few times.  My understanding is that staffers were concerned about the appearance that the friendship might be perceived incorrectly.

Huge difference. 

And I agree with Ed. There’s a protocol in the blogosphere. Bloggers should interact, at least every now and then, with the folks who take the time to check in and comment.

I have a blog and do that every chance I get. And the station promotes your blog and those of others at 10 as a way to “ interact “ with folks.

Truth in advertising and all that.

Terrence...thanks for the comment…

Jim...could you please tell us all what kind of blog you anticipate this being? If it is just going to be an opportunity to post a rant and then not respo0nd to readers’ opinions we would at least like to know that...thanks....