I believe we're getting an early glimpse of what's no doubt to come in this campaign. Obama will most certainly get his if he's the nominee. Hillary is a walking-talking version of this stuff, no matter what
No doubt.
Gawd what a f-king insane system.
The only thing worse would be if there were no free speech and no intense public scrutiny of the candidates.
__________________
I wasted my vote on the Libertarian Candidate. Who did you waste your vote on? -- Immodorator
No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible. ---- Voltaire
We believe in free markets, individual liberty, private property and, most of all, strictly limited government.
---Robert Levy
Oh wait, when you actually read the article, both individuals deny a relationship.
This is going to be a lo-o-o-o-ng political process, isn't it?
B
That is my point. The media churn has begun.
While I would EXPECT both sides to deny it [as they both retained counsel regarding the issue] I also would expect that the NYT would vet the hell out of the article before pushing the ol ENTER key. You seldom, if ever see them have a need to retract an entire story.
And we are going to see the same level of detailed investigation on whoever the Democrat is from the NYT also.
The thing I have found after researching metric shitloads of this for my coursework is that none of the major players are going to dump a major story without vetting it, quad checking sources and having backup out the ass.
All everyone has to do is look at Dan Rather and see what happens when process is NOT done correctly. Nobody in the real media wants that repeated with them in the crosshairs.
The only thing worse would be if there were no free speech and no intense public scrutiny of the candidates.
And that thought is the winner.
Like them or not, the media serves the purpose of rummaging through the dumpsters to find out the things that we are not able to.
Candidates know this when they sign up to run. If they have issues that they don't want revealed, they need to find a different profession. It is usually arrogance that makes them assume they will be able to "handle" the issue.
I believe we're getting an early glimpse of what's no doubt to come in this campaign. Obama will most certainly get his if he's the nominee. Hillary is a walking-talking version of this stuff, no matter what
I think the media are the only folks that will be more disappointed than the NeoCons if Hillary does not get the Dem nod.
The amount of material they have to work with on stories like the one posted at the top has got to fill rooms. It has got to be Howard Dean's worst nightmare.
While I would EXPECT both sides to deny it [as they both retained counsel regarding the issue] I also would expect that the NYT would vet the hell out of the article before pushing the ol ENTER key. You seldom, if ever see them have a need to retract an entire story.
And we are going to see the same level of detailed investigation on whoever the Democrat is from the NYT also.
The thing I have found after researching metric shitloads of this for my coursework is that none of the major players are going to dump a major story without vetting it, quad checking sources and having backup out the ass.
All everyone has to do is look at Dan Rather and see what happens when process is NOT done correctly. Nobody in the real media wants that repeated with them in the crosshairs.
Are you suggesting that vetting a story is the same as proving it? I hope not.
Whole story retractions are rare, but not that rare. Also, plainly false stories can stay in place sometimes for decades, like their 1930's articles about the USSR, for example. They turn-out to be total lies written by a reporter infatuated with communism. He received a pulitzer for his work which the NYT has never repudiated.
Finally, retracts of portions are not uncommon. But more commonly most people realize it is impossible to prove the negative -- under those circumstances, how can 2 people PROVE they weren't romantically involved?
Are you suggesting that vetting a story is the same as proving it? I hope not.
Whole story retractions are rare, but not that rare. Also, plainly false stories can stay in place sometimes for decades, like their 1930's articles about the USSR, for example. They turn-out to be total lies written by a reporter infatuated with communism. He received a pulitzer for his work which the NYT has never repudiated.
Finally, retracts of portions are not uncommon. But more commonly most people realize it is impossible to prove the negative -- under those circumstances, how can 2 people PROVE they weren't romantically involved?
I am strongly suggesting that vetting the facts of a story of this magnitude equal proving it. If you can't vet the facts, the story would not hold up for print. If you can vet the facts, that is the proof.
Yes, whole story retractions in modern professional journalism are VERY rare. I can name two authors who reset the standards for how stories are vetted and you can see by the number of authors that there is no "wild duck" scenario.
Retractions of portions are more common but usually not in major stories. This story has been in process for six months. McCain hired lawyers [Bob Bennett] in December to quash the story and McCain himself called the editor. McCain also refused to be interviewed to provide his side of this.
While the "affair" portion of the story is the headline, the more important point is the concern that the very good friend [affair or not] assisted in writing telecommunications legislation for McCain's Senate Committee. Careful reading will show that this is where the point of the story actually resides.
Politico
Jonathan Martin
February 20, 2008 NYT runs with McCain story; McCain camp hits back hard
The New York Times posted its long-awaited story tonight on John McCain's alleged relationship with a telecom lobbyist. Both McCain and the woman in question denied having a romantic relationship.
The story, word of which first leaked to the Drudge Report in December, relies on anonymous sources tied to McCain who said the lobbyist was warned to keep her distance to the senator in the run-up to his first campaign.
In the piece, McCain is quoted as telling Times editor Bill Keller that he never did anything unethical. Top McCain advisers, including his former Senate chief of staff Mark Salter also say on the record that there was nothing inappropriate done legislatively.
McCain's campaign tonight issued a tough statement blasting the Times for their decision to publish the piece, using similar language from a preemptive strike they released after word first leaked on Drudge.
"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign," said communications director Jill Hazelbaker, in a prepared statement sent about an hour after the Times posted their story online. "John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."
McCain told reporters Wednesday night when asked about the story: "I haven't seen it yet, so I can't comment."
The four Times reporters primarily involved with the McCain story, along with top editors, were in lock-down Wednesday night..
Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet, when contacted by Politico, wrote in an e-mail: “I am going to pass for now. The story speaks for itself.”
Reporter David Kirkpatrick echoed a similar line when reached by phone: “I think the story speaks for itself. This one I can’t help you with.”
Executive editor Bill Keller and political editor Dick Stevenson did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.
Reporters Jim Rutenberg, Stephen Labaton, and Marilyn Thompson - who's leaving the paper - also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
On Feb. 12, the Washington Post announced that Thompson would be leaving the Times and returning to the Post, her employer for fourteen years.
Rumors had circulated internally that Thompson had been working on the McCain piece and was dissatisfied it had not yet run, according to two Times staffers.
Politico asked Baquet if holding the piece had anything to do with her leaving the paper.
“I'm not going to go into stories that may or may not run in the paper,” Baquet said last week, declining to confirm or deny that there was such a story. “I had long conversations with Marilyn, and it's about her regarding the Post as home."
"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign," said communications director Jill Hazelbaker, in a prepared statement sent about an hour after the Times posted their story online. "John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."
It seems that Communications Director Hazelbaker doesn't have any recollection of the Keating 5. Wonder if there is a Wiki on that where she could brush up on her boss?
It's OK to fight back against an article. But it really helps to be forthright in that fight. It makes everything seem dubious which is the wrong impression.
Linear Mode
