Major News Story an Orhpan?

Apparently, no one at the NY Times wants to promote the major news story they broke.

When a newspaper breaks a major story, the editors and the reporters usually make a media blitz to promote it. The New York Times has apparently decided to go into the bunker instead. Patrick Hynes hosts a weekly radio show called Meet the New Press (and also works for the McCain campaign), and he invited Jim Rutenberg to appear to debate their slimy attack on John McCain. Rutenberg said no, and don't bother to ask anyone else either...

John McCain had a few things to say...

John McCain wasted no time getting in front of the media to deny the paper-thin allegations leveled by the New York Times. He appeared at a press conference with his wife Cindy at his side, from his latest campaign stop in Toledo. He denied that anyone ever "confronted" him about his relationship with Vicki Isemen at least twice....

...McCain added something later in the presser. "Since it was in the New York Times, I don't take it at face value." We tried to tell him the same thing when the Times endorsed him last month. Now he understands what we meant.

Indeed.

Earlier:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/017051.php

The New York Times launches its long-awaited smear of John McCain today, and the most impressive aspect of the smear is just how baseless it is. They basically emulate Page Six at the Post, but add in a rehash of a well-known scandal from twenty years ago to pad it out and make it look more impressive. In the end, they present absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing -- only innuendo denied by all of the principals...

From TownHall.com:

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/70815ce2-43be-4c20-89b0-3016f2c2ca2b

It's infuriating that reporters can just whistle past a graveyard of their own creation, and pretend they're not part of the story.

Ha: "Since it was in the New York Times, I don't take it at face value," McCain said when asked about former adviser John Weaver.

That was my favorite line. I think he should have been more explicit about the absolutely deplorable quality of the reporting involved.

And....

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/6f251df3-2ef0-4170-ad15-525b3adc3bbb

What's the Quickest Way to Rally Conservatives 'Round McCain?

Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 10:40 PM

A sandbagging from the NYT of just this skeezy a nature.

This doesn't reflect badly on anyone but the Times, as far as I'm concerned. The innuendo and full-on craptastic nature of the lede alone is enough to damn any actual facts that follow, which are few and far between.

Patterico posts on "What the Times left out" and "The Times Upholds Its Standards" and "So Far As I Can Tell, The NYT Never Ran A Story On The Rumor That Hillary Might Have, Allegedly, Had A Relationship With An Aide Which Was Possibly Sexual, According To Sources Who Were Anonymous, But Said To Have Been Close To At Least One Former Aide Of A Staffer Who Once Drove Chelsea To The Airport"

From the Weekly Standard:
<http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/daily_blog_buzz_18.asp>
[[Today, the New York Times unloaded this story about John McCain's supposed ethics issues and insinuates that he had a "romantic relationship" with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. The ethical issues are very old news, both McCain and Iseman have denied the allegations of an affair, and the McCain campaign issued a statement with facts the Times left out. Practically every blogger is on the story--and after dissecting the Times's painfully long rant (the Swampland has Cliffs Notes), many agree that the tale might not get the reaction its editors had hoped.

 

This morning, Richelieu made a few important points here. He asks, "No allegation of corruption, no favors, both sides deny an affair. Why is this even a story, and why is the timing so partisan?"]]

 

And, of course, there's TimesWatch.com:
<http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080221141045.aspx>
[[The liberal New Republic on the McCain smear: "In the absence of concrete, printable proof that McCain and Iseman were an item, the piece delicately steps around purported romance and instead reports on the debate within the McCain campaign about the alleged affair."]]
and <http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080221101224.aspx>
[[Conservatives and liberals alike don't think the Times came up with the goods in its long-awaited assault on John McCain -- an awkward mix of innuendo and old news.]]