“Journalism”
This belongs in the opinion section, not on the front page of a presumably reputable newspaper. It’s basically an op-ed piece about what the journalists feel are contradictory flaws in McCain’s character. While that’s a reasonable presumption based on the facts in the story, there’s no groundbreaking news here. I might as well bill The Bell Tower as an investigative reporting site because my unique insights into well known events constitute news. It’s the absolute apex of arrogant journalism.
Only towards the end of the article - after the “reporters” ramble on for paragraphs hashing over old news events injected with their slant on what it implies about McCain’s character - do we find anything about the alleged relationship. Here is the weight with which this story has catapulted to the front page of the prestigous New York Times:
“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.”
Two anonymous (of course) “associates” (notice they didn’t describe them even as aides or former staffers) “corroborated by others” presumed because Iseman had been frequently in McCain’s presence that there must have been impropriety - or at least (more probably) the appearance of impropriety. Prudently, the campaign asked her to make herself scarce, prophetically aware that enemies (IE: New York Times “reporters”) might try to make a story out of nothing. Shocking.
This is not evidence described by any rigorous definition of the word I can think of. Two people looking to smear a guy running for President who won’t even reveal their names and a campaign minimizing the presence of a lobbyist around a candidate whose message is centered on reforming Washington insider politics. This is barely hearsay. Further, even if the descriptions of these mysterious “associates” and “others” are true; there is nothing damning here. Perhaps this may pique the interest of an ambitious journalist to investigate further (and given that the story has been around since at least November of last year, this has undoubtedly happened). But front page news?
I try not to subscribe to the “liberal” media hysteria that you will find many conservatives and Republicans harping about and I’m not crazy about John McCain. However, it’s difficult to argue that the Times is grasping at straws here. Someone high up at the paper decided to run this to smear a man’s reputation. That is not credible or even reputable journalism.