Newstradamus

Bob Englehart/The Hartford Courant

Before I head off on vacation, a few thoughts about the recent fuss regarding the New York Times story about John McCain:

— For those who are McCain supporters, or former Republican McCain haters now rallying around their guy, I can see how this might be considered a calculated smear campaign. It’s not, of course. This is what good news organizations do: Dig deep and write about what they find. It’s like the story of the frog carrying the scorpion across the river. As both are drowning after the scorpion stings the frog, the frog asks why, and the scorpion answers, “Because it’s in my nature.” Any public official who thinks the press will go easy because they’ve gone easy before is whistling past the graveyard.

— The Times isn’t just picking on McCain. They’ve been tough on the Clintons in the past, and have been trying to pry the lid off the source of their recent wealth, and who is giving money to the Clinton Presidential Library. Obama has had to explain his dealings with a shady Chicago supporter, and as his candidacy grows more successful, so will the scrutiny.

— Why release the story now, rather than, say, last December when rumors were flying that a story was in the works? For the reason the Times says: It hadn’t been nailed down to the Times’ satisfaction. It could be argued that a story in December, at the nadir of McCain’s campaign, could have knocked him out for good. At this point, he may be strong enough to overcome the blow.

— Is it all a pack of lies? I doubt it. There are more anonymous sources than many journalists would like, but I don’t think the Times is making these sources up. It is understandable that former McCain campaign aides would prefer not to have their names known, although at least one has come forward to admit he was one of the sources.

— It’s notable that despite the denials by the candidate that there were sexual relations with that woman, the substance of the story (as well as the Washington Post’s, which followed on its heels) has not been refuted, which is that his aides feared the senator was tighter with telecommunications lobbyists than was seemly for the chair of the Commerce Committee. I was surprised to learn that telecom lobbyists are running his campaign — for free — but that one is also running his Senate office while he’s on the campaign trail.

— Some say evidence of a setup is that the Times endorsed McCain late last year at the same time reporters were working on the story. However, it is typical of large newspapers, as well as small ones, to keep the writers of opinion — the Editorial Board — away from the writers of news. Most editorial writers want to base their opinion what is known to the public, not what might be in various stages of verification. And reporters prefer not to have their news stories tainted by personal opinion. (That’s newspaper reporters — those rules go out the door when it comes to cable news.)

Even at a small newspaper such as the Times-Standard, we make every effort to separate our editorial position from the news staff. Whoever writes the editorials on behalf of the Editorial Board (usually but not always me) may ask reporters about facts regarding an issue, but reporters don’t write editorials.

— My main complaint about the Times story was that it framed the “lead” of story around the question of whether the senator had a romantic relationship with an attractive lobbyist. It was a distraction to the main issue about McCain’s ethics regarding lobbyists. That will be the angle that will be have legs as the campaign moves forward — unless, of course, there is a blue dress in a closet somewhere.