NYT Ombudsman chides editors for McCain story

[Fenian_Bastard]

In dissing McCain with blatant innuendo, NYT shows further proof how blatantly a liberal POS it is. I mean even NYT fans who are democrats have to be disgusted about this.

I'd love to see the NYT, or even Time magazine while we're at it, show some guts and report on Hillary's well-known bi-sexual escapades dating back to her days in Arkansas. This is not rumor--it's just a part of life to people who have known her for decades. I"m not condemning her for it, but I"m amazed just how far media will go to turn their backs on it. But then they nail a guy like McCain.

Go ahead--explain this to me.

OK.
It's demonstrable bullshirt.
Ginned-up dirty tricks, some of which the NYT already fell for, in re: Whitewater.
Some day, it won't be 1993 anymore.

 

[cranberry]

I'd love to see the NYT, or even Time magazine while we're at it, show some guts and report on Hillary's well-known bi-sexual escapades dating back to her days in Arkansas. This is not rumor--it's just a part of life to people who have known her for decades.

Riiiiight.
Try selling this to your editor. But, but, but I know it's a part of her life ... it needs to be a story damit!
Same rumors get passed around about certain athletes. No reputable newspaper would ever allow you to run with it, based on "well known rumors ... it's just a part of life to people who have known them."

So heterosexual affairs are fair game, but lesbian or bisexual affairs are off-limits?
Just wanted confirmation that some people want it both ways -- no pun intended.

Rumors shouldn't be published, is, I believe, what G-bread was talking about. Get the story, win the prize. Otherwise, shut up and get back to work.

 

[Pulitzer Wannabe]

In dissing McCain with blatant innuendo, NYT shows further proof how blatantly a liberal POS it is. I mean even NYT fans who are democrats have to be disgusted about this.

I'd love to see the NYT, or even Time magazine while we're at it, show some guts and report on Hillary's well-known bi-sexual escapades dating back to her days in Arkansas. This is not rumor--it's just a part of life to people who have known her for decades. I"m not condemning her for it, but I"m amazed just how far media will go to turn their backs on it. But then they nail a guy like McCain.

Go ahead--explain this to me.

Sure - it's not true.

Carl Bernstein spent years researching a sympathetic but tough Hillary book. He interviewed friends and enemies on and off the record.

He notes in the text that there is not a shred of evidence that Hillary is anything but 100 percent straight.

But she's a strong woman, so clearly she must be at least bi-sexual, right, Rush?

 

[21]

I'd love to see the NYT, or even Time magazine while we're at it, show some guts and report on Hillary's well-known bi-sexual escapades dating back to her days in Arkansas. This is not rumor--it's just a part of life to people who have known her for decades.

Riiiiight.
Try selling this to your editor. But, but, but I know it's a part of her life ... it needs to be a story damit!
Same rumors get passed around about certain athletes. No reputable newspaper would ever allow you to run with it, based on "well known rumors ... it's just a part of life to people who have known them."

So heterosexual affairs are fair game, but lesbian or bisexual affairs are off-limits?
Just wanted confirmation that some people want it both ways -- no pun intended.

Rumors shouldn't be published, is, I believe, what G-bread was talking about. Get the story, win the prize. Otherwise, shut up and get back to work.

Interesting scenario: Take out McCain and the female lobbyist....put in Hillary and a female lobbyist....find a couple of former aides who nugdenudgewinkwink will acknowledge rumors rumors rumors....no one on the record, just 'we were concerned about appearances.'

In your wildest imagination, is the Times going to run that story? Same details, different gender....is there ANY chance the Times makes a story out of that?

 

[cranberry]

I'd love to see the NYT, or even Time magazine while we're at it, show some guts and report on Hillary's well-known bi-sexual escapades dating back to her days in Arkansas. This is not rumor--it's just a part of life to people who have known her for decades.

Riiiiight.
Try selling this to your editor. But, but, but I know it's a part of her life ... it needs to be a story damit!
Same rumors get passed around about certain athletes. No reputable newspaper would ever allow you to run with it, based on "well known rumors ... it's just a part of life to people who have known them."

So heterosexual affairs are fair game, but lesbian or bisexual affairs are off-limits?
Just wanted confirmation that some people want it both ways -- no pun intended.

Rumors shouldn't be published, is, I believe, what G-bread was talking about. Get the story, win the prize. Otherwise, shut up and get back to work.

Interesting scenario: Take out McCain and the female lobbyist....put in Hillary and a female lobbyist....find a couple of former aides who nugdenudgewinkwink will acknowledge rumors rumors rumors....no one on the record, just 'we were concerned about appearances.'

In your wildest imagination, is the Times going to run that story? Same details, different gender....is there ANY chance the Times makes a story out of that?

No, nor should it. Which is exactly the same problem with publishing the McCain rumor without nailing it down. The problem isn't unlike the speculation that routinely gets published as news re: steroids, either.

 

[21]

I'm not sure steroids are the best example here--if anyone had published the speculation, the last ten years of baseball would have looked quite different.

But okay, use that scenario...instead of anonymous aides, you have anonymous baseball employees telling you they were so concerned about Clemens/Bonds/McGwire/whomever, they pulled him aside, told him to stop taking steroids.

Anyone going to run THAT story? Ha. Hahahahahah.

Which just underscores the McCain story as a total bust.

 

[scalper]

Put in Obama and a female lobbyist.
Story never sees the light of day. Guy is untouchable to the media, especially a paper like NYT.
Same approach we all took with McGwire in 1998 -- even when there was a smoking gun in his locker -- and for years afterward.
A lot of times, we just see what we want to see and don't see what we don't want to see.
Does not speak well of us.