Shame on the New York Times.
It’s time for some entity within the private sector to establish a watchdog organization for yellow journalism. Reporters and newspapers should not, and cannot, get away with publishing unsubstantiated and scandalous stories for no other reasons than to derail a candidate and sell newspapers. Public agencies like police and military are constantly subjected to public scrutiny, why not the print media? The first amendment is not a free ticket to slander for sales.
Senator McCain did not have an affair with the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. So says Ms. Iseman and so says Mr. McCain. Nor did he give special favors. There is absolutely no evident to support those allegations — none, zilch — and without that evidence there should not have been a story. Nuff said. Anonymous sources are just that: Anonymous. They are ghosts in the wind with no backing and support.
Any journalist can invent anonymous sources. If those sources did exist, what would be their motive for revealing such information to the media? Sour grapes? Fired for a job? Passed over for a lucrative a contract with the government? Why anonymous? How can those sources be held accountable — if they, indeed, exist? We’ll never know, will we?
The Times should answer to the public for their motives in electing to print such a story. It wouldn’t be because they are liberally biased and want to see a Democrat win the Oval Office, is it?
Think about this. If all the circumstances were identical, but the name was Obama instead of McCain, would the Times have run the story? You know the answer to that, and so do I.
Interesting that this issue, which is nine years in the cooker, happened to surface at this point and time by a newspaper that unabashedly leans toward the Democratic side.
It doesn’t matter whether you are for or against Senator John McCain for president. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. It’s a matter of ethics, the American public being awakened to the fact they are often manipulated by a biased media, some liberal, some conservative. Both sides are guilty of doing the same thing. Only, this story is a bombshell directed toward dismantling a man’s campaign for the presidency.
I know about media manipulation. Many of my police friends, and those inside the field of law, can attest to examples where the media, print and television, preconceives a story then carefully edits information in support of the story, and edits out what does not.
I once sat on the other end of a TV camera being grilled by reporters about a corruption scandal in the police department. When the interview started focusing on me as a conspirator, of higher rank than the others, the interview was halted. Later that evening, I watched in disbelief as the local news aired. They had carefully cut and pasted the wrong responses to certain questions to make me appear like a liar. Two years later, one of those reporters went out of his way to apologize to me.
In 2000, I was being interviewed on camera by John Stossel of ABC’s 20/20 concerning my views about racial profiling. I had written an op-ed article for the Miami Herald in which I asserted that profiling is justified in some instances, regardless of the racial equation. Stossel’s line of questioning was clear. I was to be portrayed on the show as a fang-dripping racist. So I turned the tables. “May I ask you a question, John?” I asked.
“When you first heard about the Oklahoma City bombing and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, what was the first thought that came in your mind?”
“Arabs,” he replied without hesitating.
“Well, sir. You just racially profiled.”
From behind, the producer hollered, “Cut!”
The interview was never aired.
News reporters and editors, especially those with political bias, are able to cherry pick information to fit a predetermined story line, much the same as George W. Bush has been accused by the media of cherry picking intelligence to justify a war. Hopefully, the public will have enough sense to know when they are being duped.
Everyone knew, including the Times, what the outcome of the new McCain scandal was going to be. Case closed. Not guilty. No evidence, let’s move on. But the seed is effectively planted, which was undoubtedly the intent.
In truth, the big story here should not be about McCain and his alleged liaison with a lobbyist. Rather, it should be about The New York Times, and all biased media. and ways to curb yellow journalism in the 21st century.