CT Blue

The McCain loving New London Day prints a Washington Post story that establishes beyond doubt that the McCain campaign lied when it said that McCain had not personally met with Lowell “Bud” Paxson before he wrote a letter to the FCC on Paxson’s behalf. Where? On the obituary page, of course.

The story is not mentioned on the Day’s home page either. Seek and ye can find, but ye surely must seek.

The Hartford Courant (A Poorly Sourced Story) joins the journalistic crowd eager to prove that the “Clinton Rules” definitely don’t apply to Republicans. According to the Courant, the Times has “some explaining to do about its story Thursday suggesting that Sen. John McCain of Arizona had a romantic relationship several years ago with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate Commerce Committee”.

It should be noted here that the Times merely reported that its sources stated that they, people working on his 2000 presidential campaign, suspected that McCain was having an affair. The Times never asserted that he was having such an affair. The meat of the story was McCain’s prediliction for lobbyists, and his willingness to do favors for them, in light of his assertions that he has never done so. But, let us go on. According to the Courant, the Times committed the following editorial sins:

The Times used sources it identified obliquely, such as “several people involved in the campaign,” “two former McCain associates” (described as “disillusioned” with the senator), “a former campaign adviser” and “a Senate aide.” Only former “top McCain aide” John Weaver was identified by name, and he said nothing about any romantic relationship.?

The use of unnamed sources can sometimes be justified if the story is significant, is corroborated and can’t be reported any other way — but probably not in this case. The New York Times — whose editorial page endorsed Mr. McCain in January, ahead of the Super Tuesday primary — needs to explain why this story justified using anonymous sources. It should also elaborate on its timing, since the newspaper was working on the story last year. Why did it delay publication? ?

If I had a dollar for every newspaper story, including countless in the Courant, that used similar characterizations for unnamed sources, I would be a rich man. If I had a penny for every anti-Clinton story, more thinly sourced than that in the Times, I’d be even richer. Where was the media outcry, for instance, when Disney released a movie that blamed Clinton for 9/11? But I digress.

Let’s take the objections one by one. The Courant says a story using unnamed sources must be significant. Check. Saint John has continually claimed that he is above reproach, particularly with regard to his relationship with lobbyists. If his claim is untrue, that’s significant. (Why, by the way, is it considered acceptable for politicians to trumpet their own virtues? If I stood up in court and told a judge he could believe what I say because I’m an honest man, he’d have legitimate grounds to laugh me out of court.)

So far as corroboration, the Times reported:

The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others. (Emphasis added)

So far as John Weaver is concerned, while it appears to be true that he is not quoted alleging a romantic relationship, he confirmed the essentials of the story, particularly the fact that McCain’s people were so concerned about the situation that they told the woman to bug off.

It seems to me that the Courant must explain why the use of unnamed sources is “probably not” justified in this case. Why not? It never really says. Surely the hint that previous adulterer John McCain may have sinned again could not be the reason.

Well, actually, we all know why the Courant, along with most broadcast “journalists” takes this position: because it involves Saint John McCain, about whom no amount of evidence will shake the conviction that he is beyond reproach. The same type of sourcing would go unremarked were the target Bill or Hillary Clinton. See, e.g., the media response to the Times article on the Clinton marriage, an issue that has exactly zero policy implications. That article cited almost 50 unnamed sources. And we Democrats are constantly bedeviled by quotes from unnamed concerned Democrats who express varying degrees of dismay every time we buck the Republican party line.

The major problem with using unnamed sources is the possibility that the media is being manipulated, e.g., the Valerie Plame leak or the Judith Miller stories before the war, other uses of unnamed sources that went largely unremarked by the mainstream. Another problem with using unnamed sources is that their anonymity sometimes confers unwarranted credence, particularly when they merely express opinions. An unnamed “senior Democratic officeholder” expressing dissatisfaction with the party’s position on issue X has more credibility than, for example, an identified Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. There is never a reason to confer anonymity on someone merely stating an opinion, but the Times has not committed that sin in the McCain article, nor does it appear that this is a case of the Times being manipulated. Indeed, the Times is merely reporting a story that has been hiding in plain sight for years.

The Times owes its readers disclosure of the agendas of its sources, which it appears to have done in this case. The thrust of the story is now being proven as John McCain repeatedly lies about things that are easily established (e.g., his claim that he never did favors for Paxson Communications, for whom the woman in question worked). That claim was disproven by his own affidavit. (McCain’s inability to lie convincingly is not related to any discomfort with lying, as Nick Kristof might assert, but with the fact that he simply can’t remember his recent actions well enough to avoid tripping himself up. ) The Democrats should not let this drop, despite most of the media’s insistence that it is not a story. If they keep bringing it up, and adding more of the amply documented facts showing McCain’s tight connections to lobbyists, some reporters with integrity will follow up. The story won’t die if the Democrats don’t let it, despite the best efforts of a McCain smitten establishment.

Postscript: After writing this post I stumbled on this, apropos of the story hiding in plain sight. You can sign the petition here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEROVh8zK4[/youtube]