McCain Smear or Scandal?
Liza Porteus Viana
Contributor
Posted:
02/21/08
John McCain took the podium in Ohio Thursday to deny all of the allegations included in a front-page New York Times story, which suggested he had an improper relationship - both professionally and, possibly, romantically - with a lobbyist.
"I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true," McCain said with his wife Cindy by his side. He stressed his long service to this country as a member of the U.S. military and as a member of Congress. "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust.," he added, saying his decisions as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee were made "on the basis of what I thought was in the best interest of the American citizen."
His campaign Wednesday night called the article a "hit and run smear campaign."
The Times article quotes several unnamed sources - "disillusioned" former staffers of the presidential hopeful - as a basis for the article (which almost focuses more on McCain's self-confidence issues, and delves into his past involvement in the Keating Five scandal). It does say details of their story were corroborated by others.
The article, which quotes a named former McCain adviser, suggests the Arizona senator used his position as committee chairman to improperly favor telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman, and also suggests he had a romantic relationship with her. It even says staffers warned Iseman and McCain to keep their distance from each other.
McCain - who is renowned for blasting special interests and generally going out of his way to avoid even the perception of impropriety that may involve his role as an elected official - disputed all claims and said he was unaware of the events that allegedly transpired involving Iseman. He also answered reporters' questions in his usual straight-shooter style, and said the article is just another way to take the focus off the "big issues."
"I will focus my attention in this campaign on the big issues and on the challenges that face this country," he said.
Cindy McCain also said she was "very disappointed" in the Times, adding that her husband would never let his family - or the American public - down in the ways the newspaper suggests.
Times Executive Editor Bill Keller issued a statement saying, "we think the story speaks for itself."
Read about the heat the Times is taking after the jump...
But the big cable news chatter this morning is also focused on the Times and how appropriate it was to publish what some are calling a "smear" article about a presidential candidate based on mostly unnamed sources. Conservative blogs are calling it a "hit job."
"It's something you would expect to see in the National Enquirer," Steven Schmidt, senior adviser to the McCain campaign, told MSNBC this morning. "It's impossible to fight against unnamed sources and it should never have been on the front-page."
Schmidt said the release of the Times story was precipitated by a New Republic story due out today, which apparently will focus on the Times' "foot-dragging" of the McCain story. The New Republic contacted the McCain campaign last week in relation to the Times story in question.
"I think clearly, in the post Jayson Blair, post Judith Miller, the Times made a decision" to release the article before any other news outlet could write anything else about "dysfunction" in its newsroom, Schmidt said.
UPDATE: The New Republic has now published its article, which can be read here. The story says one Times reporter who worked on the McCain story quit in frustration amid three months of intense deliberation within the newspaper's ranks over whether to publish it.
Normally, if there's actually a fire where one sees smoke in a story like this, news outlets will place the article prominently on their front page, above the fold. It will have a hard-news headline and lede, leaving no mistake as to what the contents are. But the Times story reads more like a feature piece. It's almost like there was an attempt made to soften the story a bit.
As a side note, many news organizations do use unnamed sources when they feel it's imperative to the story but it's traditionally used as a last resort (at least, that's how it's supposed to happen and what they teach you in journalism school).
Criticism has also been voiced about the picture of Iseman used. Instead of a picture of her in a business suit or engaged in every day professional activity, the Times splashed a picture of her all dolled up in a gold-colored dress at some sort of formal event.
Another issue that's been pointed out repeatedly this morning is that McCain's campaign provided the Times with at least 12 examples where the chairman took positions adverse to Iseman's clients and her public relations firm's clients, but none of them were included in the Times piece. "There is no evidence John McCain ever breached the public trust and that is the issue and the only issue," McCain attorney Robert Bennett told the 'Today' show.
McCain staffers also issued a 1,500-word rebuttal document, as reported by Politico, that includes other facts they say were provided to the Times but not included in the story.
"I'm very disappointed in the article. It's not true," McCain said with his wife Cindy by his side. He stressed his long service to this country as a member of the U.S. military and as a member of Congress. "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust.," he added, saying his decisions as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee were made "on the basis of what I thought was in the best interest of the American citizen."
His campaign Wednesday night called the article a "hit and run smear campaign."
The Times article quotes several unnamed sources - "disillusioned" former staffers of the presidential hopeful - as a basis for the article (which almost focuses more on McCain's self-confidence issues, and delves into his past involvement in the Keating Five scandal). It does say details of their story were corroborated by others.
The article, which quotes a named former McCain adviser, suggests the Arizona senator used his position as committee chairman to improperly favor telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman, and also suggests he had a romantic relationship with her. It even says staffers warned Iseman and McCain to keep their distance from each other.
McCain - who is renowned for blasting special interests and generally going out of his way to avoid even the perception of impropriety that may involve his role as an elected official - disputed all claims and said he was unaware of the events that allegedly transpired involving Iseman. He also answered reporters' questions in his usual straight-shooter style, and said the article is just another way to take the focus off the "big issues."
"I will focus my attention in this campaign on the big issues and on the challenges that face this country," he said.
Cindy McCain also said she was "very disappointed" in the Times, adding that her husband would never let his family - or the American public - down in the ways the newspaper suggests.
Times Executive Editor Bill Keller issued a statement saying, "we think the story speaks for itself."
Read about the heat the Times is taking after the jump...
But the big cable news chatter this morning is also focused on the Times and how appropriate it was to publish what some are calling a "smear" article about a presidential candidate based on mostly unnamed sources. Conservative blogs are calling it a "hit job."
"It's something you would expect to see in the National Enquirer," Steven Schmidt, senior adviser to the McCain campaign, told MSNBC this morning. "It's impossible to fight against unnamed sources and it should never have been on the front-page."
Schmidt said the release of the Times story was precipitated by a New Republic story due out today, which apparently will focus on the Times' "foot-dragging" of the McCain story. The New Republic contacted the McCain campaign last week in relation to the Times story in question.
"I think clearly, in the post Jayson Blair, post Judith Miller, the Times made a decision" to release the article before any other news outlet could write anything else about "dysfunction" in its newsroom, Schmidt said.
UPDATE: The New Republic has now published its article, which can be read here. The story says one Times reporter who worked on the McCain story quit in frustration amid three months of intense deliberation within the newspaper's ranks over whether to publish it.
Normally, if there's actually a fire where one sees smoke in a story like this, news outlets will place the article prominently on their front page, above the fold. It will have a hard-news headline and lede, leaving no mistake as to what the contents are. But the Times story reads more like a feature piece. It's almost like there was an attempt made to soften the story a bit.
As a side note, many news organizations do use unnamed sources when they feel it's imperative to the story but it's traditionally used as a last resort (at least, that's how it's supposed to happen and what they teach you in journalism school).
Criticism has also been voiced about the picture of Iseman used. Instead of a picture of her in a business suit or engaged in every day professional activity, the Times splashed a picture of her all dolled up in a gold-colored dress at some sort of formal event.
Another issue that's been pointed out repeatedly this morning is that McCain's campaign provided the Times with at least 12 examples where the chairman took positions adverse to Iseman's clients and her public relations firm's clients, but none of them were included in the Times piece. "There is no evidence John McCain ever breached the public trust and that is the issue and the only issue," McCain attorney Robert Bennett told the 'Today' show.
McCain staffers also issued a 1,500-word rebuttal document, as reported by Politico, that includes other facts they say were provided to the Times but not included in the story.