The McCain "Story"
By Big Tent Democrat
Speaking for me only.
Josh Marshall provides a response that I have seen in a couple of venues to the McCain story:
I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go.
(Emphasis supplied.) Since, despite the protests of some, the meat of this story is the allegation of a romantic involvement with a person not his wife, I believe Marshall is referencing more evidence of the romantic relationship. And Marshall's response demonstrates what is outrageous about the Times' journalism here. If the Times cannot put "a lot more" into the article, then the allegations of a romantic relationship can not go in the article. This seems obvious to me.
Marshall also adds this troubling sum up:
Given unspoken understandings of many years' duration, a lot of reporters and DC types can probably imagine what the full picture looks like. But we're going to need a few more pieces before the rest of us can get a sense of what this is all about.
(Emphasis supplied.) Is this what journalism has been reduced to? The Paper of Record can now run allegations of romantic relationships based on what DC reporters can understand but the "rest of us" do not get to know about? If there is "more," as some suggest, then the Times has to print it, or NOT print its explosive allegations until it CAN print "the more." My view has not changed -- this is a piece of atrocious journalism. I am eager to read the NYTimes Public Editor on this story.
|< NYC Succeeding With A Better Approach to Juvenile Justice | McCain Denies Relationship With Female Lobbyist >|