Wednesday, February 20, 2008
|
|
What's the Quickest Way to Rally Conservatives 'Round McCain?
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
10:40 PM
|
A sandbagging from the NYT of just this skeezy a nature.
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!
What about an unflattering 20-year-old quote about the old scandal, since we're talking about scandals anyway, huh? Oh, and since the reporter has nothing new or concrete to tell you. Bingo!
“He is essentially an honorable person,” said William P. Cheshire, a friend of Mr. McCain who as editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic defended him during the Keating Five scandal. “But he can be imprudent.” Oh, and then the reporter will rehash the entire old scandal because it's tangentially related to the flimsy allegations he raised in his flimsy lede by virtue of the fact that both stories serve to smear a man with very old mud. I don't think there will be any more to this story. I think this is all they have.
Sleazy, transparent hacks.
Allah and Matt note that the publishing of the piece came under pressure from TNR's crack reportorial staff.
Sleazy, transparent hacks leading the sleazy, transparent hacks, I think they call that.
John, you must have left that protective media halo on the Straight Talk Express. Yikes.
|
|
|
After batting around a few superballs from her toy bowl early morning, Tiny catches up with kitchen counter play, breaking in a new kitty cat catnip toy from Stonewall Kitcen in York, Maine.Quotation of the Year (John McCain at presshere |
|
|
The Times’ story on John McCain’s alleged affair with a lobbyist during his last presidential run crashed into the political discussion today like a flaming satellite tank filled with toxic innuendo and accusations. People are wondering a few things: What will be the effect on the Republican race and general election? (See our incisive post on what this says about Mike Huckabee having stuck in the race.) Is the Times really sure about their story, considering that the main sources are two unnamed former staffers? And, finally, is there anything they left out — maybe something specific, preferably salacious? As it stands now, the story amounts to a cruel tease — cruel to us, who want the whole truth and nothing but (and have gathered much of it in the 2008 Electopedia, newly updated with entries on the presumptive Republican nominee!), and cruel to McCain, who is no doubt praying for some fireworks in the Democratic debate tonight to push this down in the news cycle.here |
|
|
Message to McCain: these people in the media are not your friends:
Early in Senator John McCai…
Popularity: unranked [?]...here |
|
|
I guess all pretense of the New York Times loving McCain has gone by the wayside
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 tur...here |
|
|
"I'm not even going to pull the (New York Times) 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...here |
|
|
|