Posted on 02/22/2008 5:51:48 AM PST by RatherBiased.com
All three broadcast network evening newscasts led Thursday night with the New York Times story alleging an improper relationship by John McCain with a female lobbyist, but questions about the journalistic standards of the newspaper were given as much consideration as the allegations against McCain. All three ran a soundbite from Rush Limbaugh denouncing the paper while ABC and CBS featured establishment media observers who castigated the Times for basing a story on the feelings of unnamed sources: Ken Auletta on ABC and Tom Rosenstiel on CBS.
“John McCain began his day answering questions about a story in the New York Times alleging an improper relationship eight years ago with a female lobbyist,” ABC anchor Charles Gibson announced before cautioning: “The story had no evidence the relationship was romantic -- only unnamed sources reportedly claiming they were convinced it might be.” With “Fit to Print?” on screen, Gibson set up a second story on how the Times article “raised as many questions about the paper and what standards of proof it would need to publish such a story as it did about the Senator.” Reporter Dan Harris began: “Today, conservative talk radio hosts accused the New York Times of a supremely cynical slam job.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Every conservative on the air should run Juanita Broadderick stories and show the contrast in coverage, or lack of, by the big media networks and newspapers.
This dead horse needs to be beaten’ again and again.
Be still my heart.
Of course, they don't know they're next.
It took a decade, but the Dems are now exacting revenge for Monica Lewinksy.
The precident was established through the Clinton case that you could level the charge now, then find the evidence later.
Now, they’re doing it to McCain. I dont think the NYT wouldve gone this far out on a limb if they didnt have something else waiting in the kitty to back this up with.
Hillary enabled a serial rapist husband and attacked his victims publicly.
Hillary Rotten Clinton is pro-rape. So are the NOW nags who also supported Bill Clinton and used the imagery (NY NOW) of gang rape to characterize the treatment Hillary has received from Obama and Kennedy during this campaign.
Vote Hillary if you are pro-rape.
From Jason Blair to Dan Rather, they will gin up evidence. Just like Stalin and Goebbels would have.
You don't know the desperation of a dying has-been.
bttt
Really? I must disagree. The NYT is absolutely tone deaf and have stepped on their crank a number of times these past few years. The significance of this story is how quickly it's become a story about their lack of journalistic ethics, not McCain and some broad.
Jason Blair, moveon.org's unfair ad advantage slamming Gen Praeteus for doing his APPOINTED duty, and more broadly, Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" charade has done terrible damage to the driveby media. For whatever reason, the NYT is considered the flagship of the American newspaper.
If you're waiting for another shoe to drop from the NYT I'd more likely expect it to have a lot of dog doo in it as they can't seem to avoid stepping in it!
>> but questions about the journalistic standards of the newspaper were given as much consideration as the allegations against McCain
Maybe I’m reading more into this than I should...
but I think this is a direct effect of the immediacy of blowback in the Net-sphere from the NYT allegations.
In other words, the major broadcast outlets normally lag the NYT by a day on stuff like this, but in that short time between the NYT publication and the majors picking it up, the Net exploded with the obvious observation that the journalism was suspect.
And the majors picked it up and added it to their coverage, in part, because they’ve lost their iron grip on the information franchise... they HAD to pick it up or risk being seen as irrelevant.
I’m taking this as a good sign.
NOW is all about abortion and anyone who supports it can be forgiven for everything else they do.
McCain’s people were aware of the story well before it came out and were ready to respond. They handled it brilliantly. The NYT is now part of the story, their standards are called into question and conservatives went to bat for McCain which makes him look stronger.
The NYT is no longer even good for fish wrap. It smells worse than the fish!
Obviously--in stunning if disgusting self-revelation--the so-called "journalists" of the "mainstream newsmedia" didn't.
The supposed hit piece on lord McCain accuses him of what exactly..... not one d.mn thing... Would not surprise me if there was not a sign offfff from the lord McCain side to provoke a Conservative outrage for the appearance of a liberal rag picking on, well at best their chosen maverick, sure can’t call lord McCain a Conservative.
So what is next? Liberals LOVE to Folyize ‘morals voters’ and if there is smoke their (I do mean their) is fire.... and then the accusation follows what hypocrites Conservatives really are.
"...one of Mr. McCain's senior advisors directed strong criticism at the New York Times in what appeared to be a deliberate campaign strategy to wage a war with the newspaper."
Reporting the news -- who, what, where and when -- is apparently beneath the Bush hating, lefty writers in The Times. They peppered up the article with the writer's speculation. And took exception to McCain challenging The almighty Times. What a fish wrap rag.
I really don’t think so. The NYT is just plain incompetent, utterly biased, and journalistically lazy.
To an extent McCain is letting this play right into his hands to negate some criticism from conservatives, but the story is not a conspiracy cooked up by McCain, rather a conspiracy-lite cooked up by stupid NY Leftists posing as newsmen.
If the’yre in it with McCain, he certainly got the better half of the deal. Say hello to the continued decline of the NYT!
What I see out of this is an incalculable number of FREEEEEE campaign advertising spots for the speech 'god' lord McCain. The timing is ever so suspicious and lord McCain can appear the timeless role of 'victim' by the very media he penned the legislation to allow the power over elections.
The 'maverick' once again played his hand without ever having to repent for alll his liberal against US legislation, because that mean old liberal rag is picking on him. HA Week of Super Tuesday Brit Hume said McCain would not have a problem with $$$$$ he had the 'news media' to help him....
Exactly. The Times reporters are convinced of their intellectual superiority, and their extreme left wing bias makes it clear, again and again, that they have absolutely zero sense of objectivity when they “report” on politics.
The editors obviously share the bias, but I can’t even imagine what the writers were ready to go with before Keller made them tighten up the hit piece.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.