Journalistic Malpractice at the Times (Again)

The New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt found that the paper screwed up (again) in running a front page story about GOP Presidential candidate John McCain and implied that he had an extra-marital relationship with a lobbyist - trading favors for influence.

Hoyt found that there was no substance to the charges. Most readers were similarly inclined. The Times, responding to an outpouring of anger to the story from all quarters essentially called its readers idiots because they focused on that and not the larger story of influence by and on McCain.

“I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot,” Keller added.

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it.

“Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

The problem for the Times, of course, is that they made the alleged sexual liaison part of the lede:

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.

No evidence was actually proffered, and not only have all the principles denied that there was any improper conduct on the part of McCain, but many Democrats have come out against the paper's reporting, including Lanny Davis, who knows a thing or two about sex scandals - he worked for the Clintons.

Other media outlets have also jumped on the Times for this "story", which clearly falls into something that even the National Enquirer might not publish for lack of facts and evidence.