I'm confused about this story on a few levels. The New York Times made it front page news that two former (re: disgruntled) aides in the McCain campaign felt like he was getting too close to a female lobbyist in 2000. The story doesn't accuse anythong untoward or illegal or unethical happened. It just drops innuendoes and quotes anonymous stories.
Why would the Times publish this story now? Why would they publish such a flimsy one at that? On one hand, maybe they have a lot more evidence they're sitting on. On the other hand, why not keep sitting on the story until you can really deliver one with meat, rather than this...thing?
I watched the press conference where Sen. McCain responded to the story and answered questions about it. He struck me as straight-forward. He answered reporters' questions until they were done. He pretty much accused these anonymous sources of lying, and now the burden of proof is on the Times to justify their story.
Why now? They'd been sitting on it for a couple months, non-story that it is. It probably would've helped Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee had it come out before South Carolina and Florida. So once McCain looked like he had the GOP nomination locked, this comes out. It just seems widly irresponsible for the paper known for making Jayson Blair a household name and plays into conservative conspiracy-theorists' hands about the Liberal Media.
No comments:
Post a Comment