New York Times Prints Alleged McCain Smear, and Misses The Real Story
By now you know that the NY Times, after much newsroom debate, and with little factual credibility or confirmation , has released a news story that insinuates that John McCain had pushed for further TV deregulation after having an alleged romantic friendship with a lobbyist for a TV company that could benefit from the legislation. Is this is a smear? Or is there something to it?
The story seems to be a rehash of an old story, but to the radio and TV business, it is no shocker, at least the part about pushing for expanded media ownership by a single company.
The relationship part of the story is fuzzy in the NY Times Report. There is no verification of the allegations about the female lobbyist in the story. So why did the Times release the story now, rather than months ago when it apparently had it?
There is something else missing in the Times story. The Times failed to report that John McCain was the leading figure in the deregulation of TV ownership and media consolidation, bills that were especially favorable to large media moguls, who according to the Times report, flew him around the country in corporate jets.
Some call McCain the Father of Media Deregulation, a move that gave broadcast companies freedoms to own many stations in one market, a boon to large companies and the virtual end of locally-owned operations. Some people think it is great for the business, others think it destroyed incentives for local stations to carry their share of community responsibility. I have a variety of emotions on this.
But back to the story.
So, the Times story concentrates on the sexy angle of a lobbyist and a Senator without any proof that there was a relationship. And it fails to document the bigger story — that McCain, for better or worse, influenced the path of the American broadcast industry. It is odd that America’s finest newspaper is relying on innuendo and second-hand reports on the angle of the “friendship” with the lobbyist. You expect that from a torrid tabloid.
McCain is also, by the way, a supporter of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who has waged war against Cable Companies, and at the same time, played Mr. Softee with satellite and phone companies. That, in itself, is quite suspicious. Martin is the same man whose FCC is more concerned about brief moments of nudity than about the scarcity of children’s programming , except on Cable Companies that Mr. Martin is trying to limit in their scope.
If John McCain becomes President, he should take a look at the FCC, and fix it.
Comments(29)
First, the timing of this rehash story stinks. They wait until McCain is a virtual lock to receive the nomination months ahead of the Democrats. The time he could spend differentiating himself from Obama/Hillary will now be spent answering these allegations. Someone larger than the NY Times is controlling the timing of this stories release. That should be investigated.
Secondly, if this story came from “concerned campaign workers” why didn’t they step forward, quit the campaign and make their allegations in the light of day. Because there likely is no substance to this story and it is the creation of someone’s overzealous imagination, the NY Times should have done the work to find some substantial evidence before publishing. This type of irresponsible journalism is as much a ploy by the print media to remain relevant in a broadcast media world. Shame on them. If this story has legs, they should be able to prove it before publishing.
Thirdly, before all you Dems start screaming about marital infidelty and wrong doing, let’s look at the Clintons and the free pass they got from the press. It was the Right Wing Conservatives that persecuted the Clintons, not the Press. JR, I know you will be the first to rush to indignation. Be careful, buddy, this smacks of the Clintons, difference is there was plenty of evidence against 3$Bill.
Finally, if McCain is guilty of improprieties then he does not deserve to be the nominee, more less President. Personally, I don’t like McCain and his cheeky style and pompous attitude. He does deserve better than to be the victim of a politically biased smear campaign with no proof, just inuendo.
I say a pox on the Good Gray Greedy NYT for peddling tit-elation, although I’m less interested in McCann’s sex lives (he reputedly dumped his divorce on his first wife while she was bedridden, suffering from cancer; and trophy second wives remind me of the gross pluralism of Hughie the Huffy Hefner).But it’s high political decisions I want closely observed and analyzed by the press.
When the New Deal started broadcast regulation, it was simple and true: the public owns the airwaves, and in exchange for their temporary use, a station was required to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity. By the time I started looking seriously at the media as the radio-TV editor of Scholastic Teacher (1955-61), this commonsense realism was already in eclipse. Anecdote, 196l.Newton (TV is a Vast Wasteland) Minow convened four academics for a daylong palaver at the FCC over license renewal application forms–Ithiel de Sola Pool (MIT), Bernard Berelson (Columbia), Gary Becker (Chicago) and me (from the spanking new Annenberg School, Penn). As the day wore on, and I mean wearing me down,it gradually dawned on me that these social science savants hadn’t the vaguest idea about the overwhelming reality: stations promised the moon in renewals and then ignored them until the next renewal. I had learned that crucial truth at the feet of Tom Jones, demotic program manager of WFIL-TV. Tom was as articulate about T.S.Eliot as he was in programming sports and Dick Clark, and he was teaching me to shoot,edit,and write short cultural inserts on John Roberts weekend news. Those were also the enlightened days of Don McGannon and Dick Pack of the Westinghouse o and o’s. All three idealists would be totally disgusted at the crassification of commercial broadcasting as well as exalted by NPR as dreamt up by WHYY’s Bill Siemering, the best station manager PBS has yet had.(Give or take a Jim Day!) Ronald Reagan the equal time clause (it was the first extra-constitutional “signing statement” I ever noticed–that black art George W.-for Weasel-has inflicted on our commonwealth) thereby putting the money changers in charge of the Temple.
If Obama wins, I hope he calls Bill S back from Mongolia (or whatever other third world culture he is enlivening now with his inspirational expertise) to head the FCC in a total reNew Deal makeover. By the way, that day at the FCC ended with Minow appearing at the door to thanks us for our “wisdom”! Geesh. I’ve been skeptical ever since, faced with social scientists or federal bureaucrats. Patrick D.Hazard, Weimar, Germany.
The early word is that the story was in the pipeline of another outlet and the NYT was afraid of being scooped. They went ahead with a partial story rather than lose what they had. It’s a rather poor position to be in – enslaved to the financial consideration. Not a good blend of journalism and business.
BTW, the Clintons were the favorite target of Conservatives during the Lewinsky scandal but the ‘left wing media’ had a field day with Bill and his ‘bimbo eruptions’. Several of them called for his resignation. Back when he was running he was portrayed as a draft dodging, pot smoking, womanizing, liar. It certainly wasn’t for lack of information. He was elected with all of that info out there to be seen. The citizens seem to like complaining about what they do to themselves
oh god,here we go again.We are not interested in the PRIVATE lives of our political figures,unless they commit murder,rape or some other CAPITAL CRIME.
We want to know how they are going to fix our problems.get out of IRAQ,fix the economy,and get down to the business of the world and how we all will survie in it.
The times should be ashamed and so should cnn for breaking the so called story.As for the clintons being behind this,for god sake ,grow up.If anyone
would throw the first stone,it wouldn’t be bill.Try the antichrist’s obama staff.
Rick, considering your “politically biased smear campaign with no proof, just inuendo” post from yesterday, your outrage today is pretty funny. Not like you have an agenda, huh?
“It is odd that America’s finest newspaper is relying on innuendo and second-hand reports”….that was an attempt at humor, right Larry?
These half baked allegations against McCain will not stick, if anything they will further wound the NY Times before the election. Recall what happened to Dan Rather after his witch hunt against GW Bush. It’s actually good to get this nonsense vetted under a bright light now rather than a few weeks before the election. The NY Times is desperate to be relevant again, just as Dan Rather was desperate-and we know how it ended for Dan the man. Now it’s not going too well for the Sulzberger famiy either, check the stock- NYT
Patrick D. Hazard, I know you like to tell us how smart you are, but you should at least get your stories straight.
McCain did not “dump his wife while she was bedridden with cancer”. You got your RepublicanHate mixed up – that was the liberal allegation about Newt Gingrich.
According to Wikipedia: “McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife Carol in Florida on April 2, 1980. He gave her a generous settlement, including houses in Virginia and Florida and financial support for her ongoing medical treatments resulting from the 1969 automobile accident; they would remain on good terms”.
Read that – “uncontested divorice” and “would remain on good terms”.
As for the NYT – they should change their slogan from “All the news that’s fit to print” to “All the RepublicanHate that we can print”.
The NYT is nothing more than a pathetic mouthpiece for the Democrat-Media Complex.
I don’t know what conservatives are upset about. The NY Times is a business. Conservatives say time and again that the business of a business is to maximize returns for its shareholders, the only group to which it is responsible. Playing up the smarmy sex angle just helps sell papers and maximize profits.
Usually, smoke indicates fire. Big deal.
I just say it’s too bad it wasn’t Alycia Lane doing the lobbying. Then Philly stations and papers could cover it in detail!
hello Larry,here we go again,another sex scandel involving the rightwing-do gooders of course it’s the Clintons fault.
i agree with you Larry the NY Times is the finest newspaper in america.
i was thinking of holding my nose and voting for Mccain in november but not after this info about mccain and his ‘friend’.
the republican rightwingers the party of family values,more like the party of phonies and hypocrites.
BREAKING NEWS: This just in. John McCain wasn’t having sex with the lobbyist. He just has a WIDE STANCE!
Joe: For a guy you think is “playing smart”, I sure blew this one. You Newtered my “thought” completely. Mea culpa, as we altar boys were trained to say.
I would be eager to see what your open mind thinks about my thumbnail history of the FCC, and the current fiscal lottery that corrupts our political campaigns. PDH.
OOJ, I suppose that is a fair comment. My only ‘agenda’, however, is find the best person for the White House in 2008. I’m not sure any of the 3 primary survivors is the right person. I’m not so sure any of the original 16 contenders and pretenders were that person.
I make no pretenses about my distain for the Clintons.
Leo Bloom, your comment made my day. I sincerely thank you for the laugh. keep up the good work.
The real story is that this is another example of St. Johnnie Mac saying one thing and doing another. It’s always John’s pious image, his rules for others, his “maverick” image that he presents to the press and which the media eats up. Never his inconsistent almost strange behavior, his sucking up, his giving in on issues that he originally made a big fuss about. The Maverick has been a Bush gelding since the Rove campaign of 2004 cut them off and handed them to him in South Carolina.
This story is going to be a blip, if that, but I’m sure a whole lot of right wingers, like some on here, are glad to have an excuse to beat up on the New York Times.
No “excuses” are needed to beat up on the New York Times – it is all well deserved.
It’s well known that the NYT subverts the USA at any opportunity and Pinch Sulzberger is consumed with BushHate.
ZOMG!! THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!!!!11!1!!1
For JR
One sunny day in 2009, an old man approached the White House from acrossPennsylvania Avenue, where he’d been sitting on a park bench.
He spoke to the Marine standing guard and said, “I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton.” The Marine replied, “Sir, Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn’t reside here.” The old man said, “Okay,” and wa lked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, “I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton “. The Marine again told the man, “Sir, as I said yesterday, Mrs. Clinton is not President and doesn’t reside here.” The man thanked him and again walked away . . .
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same Marine, saying “I would like to go in and meet with President Hillary Clinton.” The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, “Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mrs. Clinton. I’ve told you already several times that Mrs. Clinton is not the President and doesn’t reside here. Don’t you understand?”
The old man answered, “Oh, I understand you fine, I just love hearing your answer!” The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, “See you tomorrow.”
Larry, I just noticed you referred to the NY Times as “America’s finest paper”. The Times stopped being the paper of record sometime last century, and definately after the Jason Blair incident. There is just too much qualty reporting elsewhere nowadays for the Times to matter the way it did when you were a young reporter. Hopefully the “finest paper” comment was just a slip of the mouse and is not your true belief. Many will stop taking your column seriously if you honestly believe the New York Times is the finest newspaper in America!
atp2007,
exactly what did St Johnnie Mac do that went against his beliefs? There is no proof he did anything illicit, except write a letter asking the FCC to make a decision, not stating any preference for which way their decision went. So, writing a bland letter as chairman of the committee that regulates an agency, asking them to get off their duffs and make a decision which was four months overdue is taking sides?
Give me a break!
So far this is all just warmed over hash. Not much in the way of scandal and very little in the political arena. Mac will get beat up about much more than this. The NYT has been damaged goods for a while – The great Satan to conservatives and the second coming to liberals. Everyone needs to chill.
for rick m-this is about st.johnny mac and his ‘friend’ and his family values party (the republican do-gooders),but of course it always the Clintons fault.
and by the way,i will never call st.john a old man.
JR, never said this situation was the Clintons fault. Just asking you not to get too indignant when it comes to McCain and these allegations when the “royal family” has their own similar skeletons.
rick m,where there’s smoke there’s fire,the american people are tired of the family values party telling us how to live,take a look in the family values party closet,,the Clintons have flaws,but they know how to run the country.
having a deep hatred for the Clintons is not healthy.good day.
JR, you are correct in that there are plenty of shameful acts and people in both parties. No arguement from me on that.
The Maverick has been a Bush gelding since the Rove campaign of 2004 cut them off and handed them to him in South Carolina.
GREAT STATEMENT and true
I backed McCain in 2000 but he sold out the straight talk express to get in Bush’ good grace years ago.
Shame for the NYT to run this crap though.
But let’s not pretend the media is liberal OR conservative. They rode Bill Clinton like Secretariat (thanks Jim Carrey). They just like controversy no matter who makes it.
I hate them.
Speaking of the Clintons, I wonder why the NYT doesn’t do an “in-depth” on the Clinton/Sandy Burglar story…the word in the nersrooms is that the reason Sandy raided the National Archives was to pilfer the documentation that Hillary was allowed to participate in national security meeetings without the proper security clearancee…which typically results in a 3 year disbarrment!
So, NYT, I just gave you a “cluepon”…go the Hil and 3$Bill and redeem it for the really big story of this campaign!
let him who is without sin,throw the first stone.Enough,it’s been all day long,every news station,Rush ranting and raving,O’Rielly saying I told you so,it’s over,done fini.I turned the tube off,tried the radio,gave up and read.NICE
I won’t even begin to describe how the NY Times has ruined the credibility they once had with this story. But I’ll say I agree with you, Larry, that the FCC needs serious reevaluation. Possibly less imposing of decency standards and more of keeping media conglomorates in check would be preferred.