Fanning the Flames: The Freedom Project Blog


Watchdog or Bomb Thrower?

By Shawn Healy
By now the New York Times story purporting an inappropriate relationship between GOP nominee-in-waiting Sen. John McCain and a telecommunications lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, is old news in a 24-hour nonstop cycle that paused for mere hours to consider what one McCain aide described as a "hatchet job."

The rapid response of the McCain team was certainly effective as right wing critics who wanted none of the maverick candidate rallied behind him as the "Gray Lady" took her shots. He held a press conference first thing in the morning when the story hit page one, answering questions from all comers and citing his disappointment in the paper that endorsed him only four weeks earlier. In all likelihood, McCain will weather this passing storm and his campaign will live on for what promises to be an epic battle this fall against the likes of Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton.

The larger issue are the methods employed by the Times in releasing this story, namely their use of anonymous sources. The story landed above the fold and ran a full 75 inches. It began and ended with the allegations of a potentially romantic relationship with a lobbyist who conducted business before McCain's committee (both denied this charge), and cited two anonymous sources close to the campaign in 2000 when the infractions supposedly took place. This was wrapped around a story that spoke of McCain's frenetic on-again, off-again relationship with lobbyists in general and his efforts to reform the system as a result in light of his ties to the Keating Five scandal of the 1980's.

The Washington Post ran a similar story, but without the romantic innuendo. Both had information suggesting that McCain and Iseman were friends, that his campaign staffers were concerned that the relationship threatened his image as a reformer, and that meeting between the Iseman and a high-level staffer occurred where she was told to distance herself from the candidate to avoid charges of impropriety. Most critics in the field have suggested that this was the preferred route of addressing a newsworthy story in a responsible manner.

Additionally, the Times conveniently used legislation that allegedly showed that McCain worked for the interests of the telecommunications industry Iseman lobbied for, when it could be argued that deregulation is in line with his libertarian economic tendencies. Moreover, the story fails to document the legislation supported by McCain that conflicted with the industry's interest. Telling half a story in a lengthy piece is simply unacceptable.

I first caught wind of the story during my morning workout as news streamed across the network and cable morning shows. They focused extensively on the story's lead, picturing McCain and the lobbyist side-by-side in separate photos, losing the larger message embedded in the story, and implicating guilt by default. Journalists ethicists tell us that sequencing is everything, as is the competition between eyes and ears, where the former always wins.

Also important is the backstory here. The Times has been working on this piece since November, and there was tension in the newsroom as the editors demanded verification of the alleged ties. The Drudge Report first aired public details of the story in December, triggering a New Republic piece on the tension between Times writers and editors. It ran on Thursday, the same day as the Times piece, but the latter was posted on the web by Wednesday evening. According to Times executive editor Bill Keller, there is no connection between this sequence of events and the fact that the story ran when it did. The story was merely being vetted by lawyers and finally reached his desk as of last Tuesday.

Regardless of what account we choose to believe, the Times would have done all of its readers a service by shedding a light on these inner newsroom workings. In response, many newspapers across the country refused to run the Times story, opting for the tamer Post piece. In an article that could have derailed the nomination of a lesser candidate, McCain arguably emerges stronger as his party and the conservatives that make up its base coalesce around their presumptive nominee, for better or worse. The Times, on the other hand, raised even more questions about its objectivity, as conservatives shun the "newspaper of record" and the industry itself questions the integrity of its standard-bearer.

Without doubt the press plays a pivotal role in vetting our political candidates and has not only a right, but also a responsibility to hold our elected leaders accountable. If McCain used the spoils of office to further his own career, than the Times and every other enterprising newspaper should dig for every scrap of information that would make such a case. In my mind, it failed on this ground in a story that is dated, relies almost entirely on sources we cannot confirm, and places the burden of proof not on the candidate, but the "Gray Lady" herself.


Post a Comment

<< Home


Managing Director

McCormick Freedom Project

Shawn is responsible for overseeing and managing the operations associated with the McCormick Freedom Project. Additionally, he serves as the in house content expert and voice of museum through public speaking and original scholarship. Before joining the Freedom Project, he taught American Government, Economics, American History, and Chicago History at Community High School in West Chicago, IL and Sheboygan North High School in Wisconsin.

Shawn is a doctoral candidate within the Political Science Department at the University of Illinois at Chicago where he received his MA in Political Science. He is a 2001 James Madison Fellow from the State of Wisconsin and holds a bachelor's degree in Political Science, History, and Secondary Education from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

About Fanning the Flames and the McCormick Freedom Project

Fanning the Flames is a blog of the McCormick Freedom Project, which was started in 2006 by museum managing director Shawn Healy. The blog highlights the news of the day, in hopes of engaging readers in dialogue about freedom issues. Any views or opinions expressed on this blog represent those of the writers alone and do not represent an official opinion of the McCormick Freedom Project.

Founded in 2005, the McCormick Freedom Project is part of the McCormick Foundation. The Freedom Project’s mission is to enable informed and engaged participation in our democracy by demonstrating the relevance of the First Amendment and the role it plays in the ongoing struggle to define and defend freedom. The museum offers programs and resources for teachers, students, and the general public.

First Amendment journalism initiative

The Freedom Project recently launched a new reporting initiative with professional journalists Tim McNulty and Jamie Loo. The goal is to expand and promote the benefits of lifelong civic engagement among citizens of all ages, through original reporting, commentary and news aggregation on First Amendment and freedom issues. Please visit the McCormick Freedom Project's news Web site, The Post-Exchange at

Dave Anderson
Vice President of Civic Programs
McCormick Foundation

Tim McNulty
Senior Journalist
McCormick Freedom Project

Powered by Blogger