Re: Journalistic Ethics

1

Two thoughts:

1) Reporting news as soon as it is well verified enough to print has the great advantage of being fair to all parties. Every candidate is as likely as the next to have bad news come out at the wrong time.

2) The media's massive crush on McCain has to be a big factor here. It seems like we've seen a big push of "McCain is still in the race" stories recently, starting with his endorsement from the Manchester Union Leader. The thing that strikes me about these stories is that they are entirely media generated. There has been no change in the polls or McCain's funding situation. The only reason parts of the media can report that McCain is still in the race is that other parts of the media have decided to keep him in the race.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
2

If Keller is right, then he in effect decides whether John McCain can win in Iowa.

New Hampshire. McCain has no shot in Iowa.


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
3

I see nothing to change my mind from your reflexive thought. A journalist thinks that his ethical obligation is to withhold a story because it might be influential? Because this truth might change people's minds before they vote? What a moron.


Posted by: Mother's Younger Brother | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
4

Not moronic: an educated incapacity.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
5

The problem with publishing the truth is that the campaign might not have enough time to craft a convenient lie?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
6

4: That doesn't speak well of education. My profession is not doing its job.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:36 PM
horizontal rule
7

the problem, of course, is that it gives Bill Keller outsized influence.

That may be a problem, but I think Atrios' take raises a bigger problem: Drudge's outsized influence. At least Keller has some set of journalistic ethics, agree with him or not. Drudge is the gossip girl* of political journalism who will run any rumour, so long as it targets someone he hates.

*in the cheesy tv show sense, not the misogynist one.


Posted by: matty | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
8

Your first thought was the right one; the rest of it was rationalizing.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:42 PM
horizontal rule
9

Refresh my memory, exactly how reliable should we consider Drudge again? The brief article quotes no one, refers to no legal documents on file, mentions no analogous stories in the past, and doesn't even have claimed to have tried to contact the people involved. It cites one source, once, anonymously: "newsroom insiders."


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
10

This is a puzzle, but on balance I'll take Bill Keller as a gatekeeper over Matt Drudge. Who knows what the actual story is?

The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.

"Special treatment," eh? Drudge's language personalizes the matter in an odd fashion. He's not accusing McCain of giving the industry special treatment, but the lobbyist. I will leave it up to The Mineshaft to supply the appropriate innuendos.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:50 PM
horizontal rule
11

She got the same paddling that everybody else gets.

"Thank you sir, may I have another?" "No, you may not!"


Posted by: Mother's Younger Brother | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
12

This has the typical stink of Drudge all over it, as pointed out in 8 & 9. My first thought was not of the NYT at all but to wonder which other candidate paid for the story in order to make McCain look even more wobbly by linking him both to a scandal and the NYT on a site where rumors are started and sometimes taken seriously.


Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
13

The only thing of interest in "a Drudge bit" is to speculate about why Drudge thinks he'll benefit from posting it. Fibbers forecasts, and all that jazz.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 3:10 PM
horizontal rule
14

why Drudge thinks he'll benefit from posting it

McCain is the GOP's Lieberman, with enemies galore. Drudge is doing somebody's bidding.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
15

If it were true, it would be an absolute fucking disgrace. I can't believe any real journalist, or even anyone who worked at a paper with "Times" in its name, would behave like that; if it's untrue, it is a brilliantly done piece of black propaganda.

On balance, and despite Judy Miller, I think it is more likely to be untrue. Apart from anything else, editors kill stories. They don't postpone scandals. It's either go as soon as you have got it, or squash it flat.


Posted by: Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
16

They don't postpone scandals.

The NYT did sit on the NSA warrantless wiretapping story for over a year, when they had the story before the 2004 election. I tend to believe their defense that they sat on it out of concern for national security, but still.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
17

Point. I had either forgotten that, or suppressed it in the interests of not suffering too much cognitive dissonance. National Security is different, perhaps, from political convenience, but not if you are fighting an existential war, rather than a couple of colonial ones. Jesus, would Bush have lasted longer than Neveile Chamberlain in a real war?


Posted by: Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
18

Controlling scandals are only half of the media's outsized influence, though. The media still has complete control over the narrative of the campaigns, and that's never going to change.


Posted by: destroyer | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:21 PM
horizontal rule
19

is


Posted by: destroyer | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
20

Can't we have some love for the phrase "Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries"? You who else is just weeks away etc? Me.


Posted by: DonBoy | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
21

I think it is more likely to be untrue

What part do you think is untrue?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:25 PM
horizontal rule
22

21: Probably all of it. This is Drudge, after all.

I doubt there is actually a story there. If there is a story there, I suspect that Keller doesn't think his reporter has enough evidence to publish. I certainly don't believe that McCain has "personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish" it.


Posted by: jim | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
23

Interesting. Call me credulous, but I believe all of it.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
24

You believed the rumor about the Democratic candidates, too, didn't you?


Posted by: destroyer | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:40 PM
horizontal rule
25

That Hillary is carrying John Edwards' love child? Yeah.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
26

That John Edwards had turkey-basted Hillary and her lesbian lover, you mean.


Posted by: destroyer | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:49 PM
horizontal rule
27

But if this doesn't end up panning out, then Drudge's credibility is shot!

[pause for laughs]


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:58 PM
horizontal rule
28

But he basted her with love, destroyer.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:58 PM
horizontal rule
29

Upon reading the scoop: A woman lobbyist is a much wickeder thing than just a lobbyist.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 4:59 PM
horizontal rule
30

23: I think it's highly likely that a Times reporter thinks he has a good story - which, after all, is all that Drudge is reporting here. So I agree that this item is likely true.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 6:37 PM
horizontal rule
31
Politico has confirmed that McCain himself had one conversation with Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, in which the senator expressed concerns with how the story was being reported.

link


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 6:54 PM
horizontal rule
32

Just out of curiosity, why would anybody here not believe this story? It's completely consistent with McCain's past behavior.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 7:02 PM
horizontal rule
33

how the story was being reported

But it's not being reported. What's the hold-up?


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 7:16 PM
horizontal rule
34

The only responsible choice, absent some truly extraordinary circumstance, is to report the news as they come across it, and let the chips fall where they may.

Doesn't this overlook the fact that news stories often aren't simply something one comes across, but that are dug up? Investigative journalism, they used to call it.

There is agency already involved in dredging up (the) news, in other words. Judgment in publishing anything found is then entirely appropriate.

This doesn't speak to the specifics of the McCain scenario, but to the general point.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 7:35 PM
horizontal rule
35

But it's not being reported.

Drudge says it's coming out tomorrow and "reported" is a term of art that includes the research and interviews reporters do on a story.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 7:38 PM
horizontal rule
36

Oh, sorry, messed up what was supposed to be a blockquote there.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12-20-07 7:39 PM
horizontal rule
37

From a meta point of view, it's interesting to see the doublethink inherent to journalism come out here: that journalists and the news media are impartial reporters of the news with no stake in in the events they report on something one stumbles upon, while at the same time media coverage is acknowledged to make or break a candidate.


Posted by: Martin Wisse | Link to this comment | 12-21-07 1:04 AM
horizontal rule
38

Ogged: I thought that they could not be sitting on hard evidence of a misdemeanour without publishing it for fear that it would upset an election result.

Seeing Apo's link, I am less certain.


Posted by: Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 12-21-07 2:54 AM
horizontal rule
39

Drudge: IIRC, Drudge comes up with good stuff now and then, which is why people don't ignore him. Novak is the same way. In order to sow disinformation effectively, you have to mix in some valid stuff. A fine art. Double agents do the same thing.

So I think the story might be true, or it might be disinformation. No help there.

Times: A rule suppressing unproven new stories a week or so before an election makes sense to me. A lot of candidates have been destroyed by last-minute bombshells which turned out either to be false or else not as big a deal as they seemed.

I really think that all the big media are players, though, and that it's useless to wish for honest political journalism in the U.S.

The interesting thing is that this is probably Republican oppo research at work (through Drudge). It's amazing how many Republicans absolutely hate one of the major Republican candidates. I'm wondering whether the party bosses will have to dig up an unknown sleeper (which is what Dubya was, very little record) and run a brokered convention.

My guess is that a lot of the big players are bailing out on the Republicans and getting used to Hillary, Reid, and Pelosi. Bush did some work for him but he fucked up in some ways and is in disrepute. Time to slap in a new one.



Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-21-07 9:05 AM
horizontal rule