Brewing McCain sex scandal? Or the end of the New York Times?
The New York Times has posted a story that alleges Senator John McCain had a relationship during his 2000 presidential campaign with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman that his aides feared had become romantic, to the point where his:
"top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself instructing staff members to block the womans access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity."
The article also notes that some Iseman clients donated to McCain's campaign and that those companies had businesses regulated by the committees McCain then served on.
Both McCain and Iseman have denied any romance.
On Keith Olbermann's Countdown show on MSNBC, Pat Buchanan revealed that rumors on DrudgeReport around Christmas time about a possible New York Times story on this issue went nowhere. Buchanan said that both McCain and Iseman hired lawyers and persuaded New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller not to publish the story, at least at such a sensitive time in the primary campaign.
So why now? If there is something more lurking unsaid, this initial volley may make sense. If not, the New York Times risks suffering a huge hit to its reputation, trafficking in stale sexual innuendo that most people will find distasteful.
If the NYT can connect some dots, why not do it now? If not, why not spike the story until or unless something of substance can be verified?
High-stakes journalism is just that -- high stakes. Does the New York Times have something to tell us we need to know? Or do they have a tin ear when it comes to understanding what people care about?
