The only thing more explosive than the New York Times page one expose, which called into question John McCain’s relationship with a lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, is the back story dealing with some Times staffers uneasiness about this investigation, and whether it should have been published at all (see Gabriel Sherman’s account from The New Republic).This bombshell might have also had an unintended effect; that of uniting Republicans, especially those who have been leaning toward Barack Obama over the last few months, along with arch conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, who have been railing against the Arizona senator ever since Mitt Romney abandoned his presidential bid. Shortly after the Times' grenade hit their website, Limbaugh went on the air to say that he wasn’t surprised that a liberal institution like the New York Times published a page one expose, which was nothing more than a Page Six item. 
        I’m rarely in agreement with the bombast coming out of the conservative radio hosts mouth; in fact, I never remember agreeing with him until CNN reported his sound bite after the Democratic debate Thursday night. Rush is right; when all is said and done, this was essentially a cheesy gossip piece. The only question I have is what was Bill Keller thinking? Granted, it was a fine piece of reporting if it deals exclusively with McCain and his conflicts of interest as a ``crusader for stricter ethics and campaign finance rules'' in the post-Keating Five era. Yes, it should have been published, yes voters have a right to know the contradictions in a presidential candidate's public performance, but when the story became engulfed with sexual innuendos without providing concrete evidence, it should have, at best, been neatly tucked away in the back pages of the A section.
         When all this buzz hit the internet, and when I read Keller said his team of reporters had ``nailed it’’ to his satisfaction, I was sure what the executive editor meant by that was the Times had in their possession hard evidence from anonymous sources (cell phone logs, hotel receipts, semen-stained dresses, etc) linking McCain and Iseman in a sexual relationship.  But according to the  Q & A forum posted on its website Friday, no such documentation appears to be forthcoming. Jill Abramson, managing editor of the Times wrote: `` Documents are always useful in reporting, but they are not required. The Times story was not about a romantic relationship. It was about a senator who had been embroiled in scandal, then rebuilt his career as a reformer and concern among his aides that his relationship with Ms. Iseman was putting that career at risk.”
         I felt offended by the pompous tone of Abramson's response, along with Keller’s in other quotes, as if readers were too dumb to grasp the point of the story; that it was about a professed reformer making reckless decisions.  Then, I ask, why tease readers with sexual implications unless you can back your 3,000 word page one exclusive with something more incriminating than staff aides concerns?
         I was a little more relieved knowing Clark Hoyt, The Times Public Editor, also questioned the paper’s coverage, when he wrote in his Sunday's column, ``what the aides believed might not have been the real truth. And if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed. ‘’
         I was especially disappointed in Keller and Abramson’s news judgment over this time bomb. I always considered both of them to be outstanding journalists who held their paper to the highest standards. I never bought in to the suggestion, made by others, on many other occasions, that the Times is merely another liberal mouthpiece masquerading as an objective newspaper, and duping readers into believing they’re only interested in ferreting out the truth.  Even though I didn’t always agree with their slant on a particular story, I valued their sound reporting and journalism ethics. I held that opinion up until Thursday morning. 
         But that’s just my two cents, which probably isn’t worth a penny these days.
         Before closing the book on this matter, I did seek out the opinions of those much wiser than mine, some journalism professors.
     Here’s what a few had to say about the Times investigation.
 
        The candidates for public office must be vetted.  The public has a right to know if there was a potential or real conflict of interest in an elected representatives past.  The New York Times did its job.  Let’s hope that it looks at all the candidates and the sitting President in the same way.
        -Rose Economou, journalism professor at Columbia College Chicago, who teaches a course on Media Ethics & Law

  ``I think the Times made a big mistake publishing this story.  The sex angle is unproven, sensational, sexist, and pretty much irrelevant unless it led to McCain’s changing his votes on her behalf (which the Times didn’t prove).  I don’t like the use of anonymous sources to do a slime job on a person.  The really hard reporting the Times didn’t even attempt to do; that is, examine McCain’s record as Chair of Senate Commerce and try to determine when he voted his principles or the public trust, as opposed to a lobbyist position.  None of that was in there.  In the long run, I think this story will not hurt McCain, but it has hurt the Times.  Sad.  I love the paper.  But sometimes its news judgment is sophomoric.’’
        -David Rubin, Dean of the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University who has twice served as a Pulitzer Prize juror

        ``The most important journalistic question that the story raises for me has to do with the motivation of sources. I do not doubt that the reporters whose names are on the article had sources who are or had been within McCain's inner circle. When reporters agree to have their name in the byline of a story, the reader should assume that they know they are putting their credibility on the line as well. With a high-powered quartet like the one that signed off on this story, backed up by statements from the executive editor Bill Keller, fabrication is unlikely to be involved. After all, the Washington Post story that followed had a named source who had previously worked for McCain. So why did the sources begin talking to the Times and the Post last year — before McCain staged his surprising comeback? Is it possible that McCain had less than harmonious relations with his staff and former staffers, especially after his campaign got into serious financial difficulties last summer? 
    -Joan Deppa , professor of Journalism at the S.I. Newhouse Communications Center at Syracuse University, who teaches courses in news writing, reporting, and critical perspectives on news.

        -Bill Lucey
        billlucey@bellsouth.net