N.Y. Times fails to pop McCain's balloon.
The New York Times shot its credibility in the foot with the story about Sen. John McCain and his suspected secret love lobbyist, Vicki Iseman.
McCain clearly gained the upper hand in strategy with this failed attempt at integrity assassination. Several things happened to McCain's advantage. One, the Times is now on notice to be extremely cautious with its reporting practices. They screwed up by focusing the story on the sex angle, rather than the more important lobbyist favor-pandering aspect.
The story, which was most likely leaked by McCain's own cronies, sweeps aside the potential for future negative campaigning by the Democratic survivor, whoever that will be, especially if any such negativity is generated by the Times staff.
Suspicion will loom ominously over any of the iconic paper's reportage that involves McCain's financial and/or sexual exploits. Even if scandals exist in Republican Land, they can't be exposed by the Times for fear the paper will appear to have old score to settle with old guys. It's too late to save face now, though. The editor should have tossed caution to the wind on this one by calling in Jayson Blair. At least then they'd have a scapegoat.
If an actual sex dalliance ever was scandal-sheet worthy, McCain is now clear to brush it aside. Ink has clouded the water. It's inconceivable that he will reach the porn star status that Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton achieved with Monica, but then again, that's not the image McCain wants to project.
The Times put the kibosh on criticism directed at McCain's moral standing, whether perceived or real; essentially creating a GOP martyr. The rush to scoop the New Republic, who tried to scoop the Times, who tried to scoop the New Republic, omitted two basic news imperatives; attributable sourcing and sound editorial judgment.
The next major newspaper to accuse McCain of impropriety had better have 8" x 10" glossies, a YouTube video and/or DNA evidence before committing their publication to the bottom of the proverbial bird cage.
Any accusations of courting financial deal makers (or under-the-sheet-tussles with blonde lobbyists) will be viewed by voters as desperate liberal media mudslinging. Practically every potential voter in dread of negative campaigning will reject future slams against St. John de Arizona.
Most likely, to survive in the elections coverage mix, the Times will now direct its focus on Obama slamming, much as McCain has already announced he will do. What a frightening concept; tag-team headline writing between liberal media and the conservative candidate (Huckabee is only a red herring).
Hillary's recent tirade against Obama for his mailers proved to be a big audience turn-off in Ohio -- and blue collar workers in Ohio take that crap personally. By lambasting the kid from Chicago, who consequently appeared surprised at her verbal meltdown, Hillary all but tossed the "youth-mallows" and the super-duper delegates into Obama's already raging bonfire.
It's merely a matter of months before we hear a loud sizzle and pop in the youth vote. College-age voters don't have the stamina or attention span to survive the months of confusing ads, issues twisting and name calling that lies ahead. They will become desensitized and disenfranchised before summer's end, which ultimately will benefit McCain.
The Times all but guaranteed buku million-dollar investments in the 'Nam vet's war chest. By the time mainstream evaluation of the old soldier melds with the "blogzone" rhetoric of ultracon supporters, McCain will be palming the White House Bible with a loud rendition of "I do solemnly swear...."
It appears I may have to publish one big, fat "I told you so" on Wednesday, Nov. 5.
No comments:
Post a Comment