NyTimes on McCain

This piece has been getting the rounds and is the new (pseudo) scandal d’jour.

The substance of which seems like a big pile o’ nothing really.  I’m not a McCain supporter but this kinda stuff is what gives the NyTimes a bad name for its (supposed) liberal bias.  Or frankly bias aside, just poor journalism.  McCain plays the role of super-reformer and therefore sometimes gets himself into some situations that look suspicious–though no real proof of any bad doing.  The major piece is a rumor of an extra-marital affair, which frankly is not to me (even if it were the case and they both say it’s not so unless/until someone has evidence differently, I’ll take them at their word) here nor there in a presidential race whatever moral disagreements I have with adultery.  But not much in the way of a story there.

And for those who don’t know/remember these things, a recalling of McCain’s involvement in the Keating Scandal (1991), which nearly ruined his entire political career.

Just looks to me like the NyTimes trying to gin up something and “Rudy Giuliani” McCain.  It’s curious though given how much free good press (and essentially a pass from the media) McCain gets.  The one story that comes out negative turns out to be probably nothing.

Published in: on February 21, 2008 at 4:55 pm  Comments (2)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://indistinctunion.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/nytimes-on-mccain/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. I don’t think there’s much to the extramarital affair angle, but the lobbyist favors stuff looks pretty bad. For a counterpoint (and good defense of the NYT), check out


    btw, I think it’s really weak for you to be arguing that (1) the NYT has done a liberal bias hit job piece, and (2) which is really funny because mostly the NYT runs positive, enthusiastic good press for McCain. Which is a really bizarre narrative, if you ask me. 🙂

  2. I was just saying I thought it odd that normally he gets such good press that the first time he gets a real attack it may be based on pretty much nothing. When there are plenty of things he could rightly be scorched on.

    Unless some more comes out on the lobbying I don’t know. They all do it and probably more than he does. I guess you could argue he’s more hypocritical…

    One theory being floated around is that there is more to this story and the NyTimes is sitting on something–possibly checking a final lead/fact or two. If that were the case, this would make sense as an opening salvo.

    If not, looks fishy to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: