WaPo Writes It With A Lede
Even less in the hopper with the truck going in nosefirst than when the NYT backed it in last night. WaPo steers clear of any romantic speculation and says the McCain camp just didn’t want a lobbyist in the picture. Quick NYT scandal roundup follows. Because even the lefties think it could end up being more of an NYT scandal than a McCain one:
The New Republic (with a McCain staff assist): We made NYT do it.
As one of my co-workers noted, it will be interesting to see what the NYT public editor has to say about the genesis of the story this weekend or next.
Josh Marshall, TPM, wants to know if there’s any there there.
I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn’t know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I’ve learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.
I’d suggest, Josh, you get past esteeming that institution. But it is noteworthy that a flaming lefty, while willing to suggest there must be meat somewhere because NYT’s just served up a sandwich, allows that the NYT’s dog might have eaten it.
Broken clock Taylor Marsh manages to tell the Times.
Daily Kos, not surprisingly, dives headfirst into the shallow end.
Allah at Hotair:
A sex scandal that may not be a scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that may not be an ethics scandal tucked inside an ethics scandal that was a genuine scandal 20 years ago, and for which McCain has begged forgiveness ever since. The Paper of Record.
The media halo’s gone, Maverick. Nothing personal. Just business.
Mary Katharine Ham at Townhall asks, “What’s the Quickest Way to Rally Conservatives around John McCain?” NYT smear job!
This doesn’t reflect badly on anyone but the Times, as far as I’m concerned. The innuendo and full-on craptastic nature of the lede alone is enough to damn any actual facts that follow, which are few and far between.
I’m not even going to pull the passage for further circulation, but unnamed sources think there might have been a sex scandal but aren’t really sure, which may or may not have been connected to an ethics scandal that they’re not even sure existed, the evidence for which all comes from eight years ago, and which naturally warrants dredging up the details of an actual ethics scandal for which McCain was punished and has duly apologized and seen-the-light for incessantly since it happened, ahem, 20 years ago.
And, that’s the strongest they’ve got. They put it right up front. Reverse pyramid, as they call it in the biz.
If I had turned this load of crap into a journalism professor at the University of Georgia, I would have failed the assignment.
Let’s check out some of the piece’s most ridiculous moments. Weasel Word Alert 1:
But the concerns about Mr. McCain’s relationship with Ms. Iseman underscored an enduring paradox of his post-Keating career. Even as he has vowed to hold himself to the highest ethical standards, his confidence in his own integrity has sometimes seemed to blind him to potentially embarrassing conflicts of interest.
Anytime a reporter tells you that something “underscores” an enduring problem a Republican public official has, he is telling you what he has long thought to be that official’s problem, and furthermore that he has longed to tell you about his unique insight, and has just happened upon a flimsy pretense for imbuing you with his great knowledge. Say thanks!
…
Sleazy, transparent hacks.
Powerline: Another decade, another possible McCain impropriety. “I guess making oneself vulnerable to two negative stories in forty years is the price of a lifetime of public service.”
Captains Quarters: Times already in stonewall mode?
Ana Marie Cox at Time’s Swampland brings us obstreperousness in a Toledo parking garage, but lets McCain aide Salter pummel NYT behind a row of mid-sized rental cars.
TalkLeft says it isn’t about vague romance insinuations, its the vague lobbyist access insinuations that will dog McCain. That’s a two-way street. I doubt you’ll see anyone running out in traffic. Which, for the conspiracy theorists, raises another prospect … NYT bid to neutralize ethical questions in the Dem camp? Could be a submotivation, though I suspect the embarrassment of being portrayed as having sat on a story was a bigger incentive.
About that, Surber drives a couple of nails home: Sex is Private … when innuendo and denials all around trumps an actual strumpet, and Obama, Man of the Lobbyists.
With thanks to Memeorandum on the roundup.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:09 am on Thursday, February 21, 2008
4 Responses to “WaPo Writes It With A Lede”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 21st, 2008 at 8:49 am
[...] Jules Crittenden: WaPo Writes It With A Lede [...]
February 21st, 2008 at 10:28 am
Eh, this merely amounts to the first shot off the bow. More is coming. Much more.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Jules, Weaver came out in WAPO today discounting the NYT version of “affairs.” Since he was in the center of the maelstrom (as he put it), he might know.
Not true, he said.
Reminds me of the faux Kerry-with-an-intern story on Drudge from 2004.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:31 pm
NYTimes, Reuters, AP, the rantings of the Inmates of the Asylum at Charenton, what difference does it make? If you read something in the newspaper, see it on TV or the internet, your reaction must be:
“That is very interesting, I wonder if it is true.”
Trusting your fellow man and believing what he says are social virtues, but you never want have someone say to you after the house of cards has collapsed:
“And you believed them?”