All The News That’s Fit To Infer
Via ChiTrib’s Swamp:
A Washington lobbyist who said the New York Times implied she had an improper relationship with Sen. John McCain will drop her defamation lawsuit against the newspaper, which today said it never intended that readers conclude the two were having an affair.
I’m not sure how it is possible to read the offending article and not conclude the New York Times wanted us to think the two were having an affair. But NYT can hardly be held responsible for its readers’ prurience. Here’s the top of it:
WASHINGTON — Early in Senator John McCain’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.
A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.
On the merits of Iseman’s libel suit and what this settlement says about it, let me just say this is a great day for innuendo journalism. NYT, to its credit, never in fact said McCain and Iseman were having an affair. It just quoted people who said they were convinced they were having one. A central point of dispute in the suit was whether Iseman was a public or a private figure, NYT’s contention being the former, which would mean they could infer all day long as long as they really, really believed their inferences. NYT’s capitulation, therefore, in denying any untoward intent, suggests that while Iseman may not have had a prayer convincing anyone that as a DC lobbyist she was not in the public arena and will content herself with NYT’s mealy-mouthed statement, NYT also felt iffy about its chances in front of a jury in this not particularly well-supported question of a lady’s virtue, and didn’t care to risk any massive judgments that might cause Mr. Carlos Slim to raise his eyebrows. Because juries and even high court judges are not always swayed by points of law once emotions get dragged into a matter.
In fairness, the article wasn’t just designed to make readers think these two were having an affair, although the top sure looks like it. It was also intended to let NYT bring up a lot of old Keating Five news, and point out that like every other pol in DC, McCain deals with lobbyists. It all looks a little quaint given his high-minded former opponent’s recent dealings. But OK, I accept NYT’s word that it never intended to convey the notion that McCain and Iseman were having an affair.
This raises a problem. Most readers might conclude this article, at the top of NYT’s website tonight, is intended to convey the impression that the Dow experienced a late slip:
Wall Street slipped lower on Thursday. The Dow Jones industrial average closed at its lowest level in six years amid concerns about the plans by the Obama administration to help homeowners in foreclosure and shore up the struggling banking system.
After bouncing between light gains and losses, financial markets dropped in the last hour of trading.
But what does NYT really mean by that? Search me.
How about this one. Economy and environment on the agenda as Obama visits Canada. Well, that’s what NYT says now. Who knows how NYT will feel about that later?
It would be a lot more fun to root around in NYT’s enterprise archives for anything reported on background, and try to determine NYT’s actual intentions, but here’s another good one from tonight’s website. NYT’s own article on the Iseman settlement:
A lobbyist’s lawsuit against The New York Times over the newspaper’s account of her ties to Senator John McCain has been settled, both sides announced on Thursday.
The suit, filed by Vicki L. Iseman, the Washington lobbyist, was settled without payment and The Times did not retract the article. In an unusual agreement, however, The Times is letting Ms. Iseman’s lawyers give their views on the suit on the paper’s Web site.
Their opinion is accompanied by a joint statement from both sides and a note to readers, which will also appear in Friday’s edition of the newspaper.
The suit stemmed from an article published on Feb. 21, 2008, when Mr. McCain had become the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee.
The lengthy article, published on the front page, said that despite his public posture as an ethics reformer, the senator had at times been blind to his own potential conflicts of interest.
Blah blah blah, etc. Because it has become necessary henceforth to divine NYT’s intentions, let me take a stab at it. The intention here appears to be to avoid allowing readers to conclude that NYT has admitted to any failings whatsoever, or that its article was a piece of libelous crap, as it takes fully 13 graphs, in which NYT yaps on about no retraction, no cash, raises the romantic innuendo again, and says the Washington Post sort of did it, too, only not exactly, before NYT manages to actually spit out that it never intended to convey any impressions.
Speaking of impressions, Editor and Publisher got the impression, or at least is conveying the impression, that NYT isn’t even denying it intended to convey any impression:
The Times also plans to run in Friday’s edition a note to readers saying that the paper did not state or imply that there was an improper relationship between Iseman and McCain.
That’s awfully obliging of E&P. Can hardly blame E&P for swallowing all those denials of any denial. The actual NYT statement does however make a positive statement about what NYT’s intentions weren’t:
The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.
Hinderaker at Powerline opines under current defamation law, Iseman didn’t have a prayer, but the Times preferred to avoid discovery. And he notes she was nothing but collateral damage in a smear campaign aimed at McCain. The Times got what it wanted Nov. 4.
Hot Air sees it as “no settlement, no apology, nothing.” I dunno. They were compelled to make a statement that is on its face absurd and laughable.
Gawker thinks it’s a “mealy-mouthed” statement but declares the innuendo about the “possibly McCain-sexing lobbyist” is “probably true.” Hey, maybe Iseman can sue Gawker for $27 million next, and make Gawker post a mealy-mouthed statement.
Talking Points Memo: Who won? It’s one of those “If you have to ask … ” questions. Here’s how it works, TPM. Whne one of the biggest newspapers in the world has to say it didn’t intend to do what it clearly intended to do, it a case in which it had liberal U.S. libel law on its side, it didn’t win.
Ha! The Blog of Legal Times reports getting an email from Iseman that would appear to convey the impression that NYT’s obfuscation has been enhanced by prevarication:
“I am bound by confidentiality about the process, but the New York Times statement that there was not an apology to me is a falsehood.”
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:07 pm on Thursday, February 19, 2009
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
