| Compare how these two (utterly hypothetical) stories might play: A. "McCain hawks legislation written by lobbyist." Or: B. "McCain shags lobbyist; hawks her legislation." We all know which one gets the attention. That's what makes today's NY Times bimbo-bombshell so frustrating and disturbing as a piece of journalism. The "romantic relationship" part of the story is from anonymous sources; there are no specifics of the relationship; and no actual evidence (phone calls, emails, dates and places of trysts, etc). All we get is that some unnamed sources felt "anxiety" over her presence, and were "convinced that the relationship had become romantic." Well, so what? Did it happen or didn't it? That's a yes or no question. And if the answer is just "maybe", how can you possibly run the story? And then we are treated to an egregious example of my least favorite thing in journalism today: The reporters' gratuitous narrating of the political import and effect of their own story: It had been just a decade since an official favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended Mr. McCain’s political career by ensnaring him in the Keating Five scandal. In the years that followed, he reinvented himself as the scourge of special interests, a crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules, a man of honor chastened by a brush with shame. 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. Is this "just-the-facts, ma'am"? Or is this is a pitch for a screenplay? While it is certainly proper to provide career context to a story about a presidential candidate, can't we do without the imposition of the colorful interpretive narrative -- the contrived mythologizing? I suppose this kind of prose-mongering sells papers and wins promotions and Pulitzers, but it belongs on the op-ed page, or in a book -- not front-page, above the fold. The treatment of McCain's legislative history vis-a-vis his professional relationship with Vicki Iseman is completely above board. In fact, these kinds of favors and deals within our Congress are drastically under-reported by outlets as august as the Times. The fact that this kind of thing is just unreported business-as-usual is the real scandal. How ironic, then, that the Times chose to upstage an otherwise important and well-documented account of McCain's actual work as a senator with juicy but ultimately unproveable allegations about a possibly romantic affair with a lobbyist. Look, unless they can produce a blue dress, you just can't prove anything. (And I certainly don't mean that as encouragement that they should go find one.) Now we learn (from Adam Reilly) that the Globe nixed that part of the story. Good on them. And shame on the Times for slinging such unsubstantiated crap. You can laugh that it's McCain today, but they can do to anyone what they did to him. And they will. (I look forward to a time when I don't have to think about the sex lives of our national leaders. As Atrios says -- eeew.) |
