Fox News Issues Press Release Against NYT

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 23:44


While only a few news outlets have picked up on the story in the New York Times about a close relationship John McCain had with a telecom lobbyist, one of the first out of the gate is actually Fox News. Of course, the story from Fox News is actually about how bad the New York Times story is. Check out the first paragraph in their version:

John McCain's campaign lashed out Wednesday at a new report in The New York Times alluding to the Republican presidential candidate's relationship with a female lobbyist.

Yeah, that is how the story starts on Fox News. After long quotes from the McCain campaign blasting the NYT for publishing the story, here are the final four paragraphs, blasting the NYT itself:

When McCain denied the allegations in December, including the alleged affair, he was responding to expectations that the Drudge Report was going to preempt the investigation before the newspaper actually reported it, campaign officials said.

Though Drudge did not print the story, campaign officials contend that the newspaper decided to go ahead and publish it now because The New Republic was planning a scathing critique of the newspaper for revealing the contents of its investigation.

McCain campaign officials said two weeks ago, they got a call from The New Republic asking for comment and information because it was planning a story on the newspaper's investigation.

Officials argued The New York Times, buffeted by reporter scandals in recent years, is covering itself, publishing a deliberate smear under pressure from the magazine and because of sensitivity to its reputation caused by reporter Judith Miller, who investigated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and was a key player in the subsequent CIA leak investigation involving Valerie Plame.

It is pretty hilarious to see a "news" outlet issue an attack story on another news outlet for a story that outlet published only three hours earlier. It is a bit more sad when one considers that this is the very same "news" outlet that many Democrats have recently thought it was a good idea to debate on, only to temporarily break under pressure from the grassroots. Because, you know, we should be appearing on media outlets that issue press releases against other media outlets for publishing information that could potentially be damaging to Republicans.

Expect more over the top pushback from right-wing media outlets on this one. Heads are exploding as we speak.  
Chris Bowers :: Fox News Issues Press Release Against NYT

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Fox News Issues Press Release Against NYT | 25 comments
In the general... (2.00 / 2)
McCain (or whoever their nominee is) is going to push hard to get debates on Fox News. We need to be very strident with our party and our nominee that he/she is not to go on Fox News under any circumstances, even if McCain makes a campaign issue of it and taunts us.
broadcast networks only (4.00 / 1)
That's the only thing that makes sense for the small number of Presidential debates.  But definitely not Fox.

I'm sure we won't see Obama on Fox anytime soon, after they proposed a "lynch party" for his wife.    


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Fox has a broadcast netwrork, too... (4.00 / 1)
...and they are in every market...  well, at least in the National Football Conference!  ;-)

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
maybe the League of Women Voters wasn't so bad (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
McCain (4.00 / 2)
What's that old saying of George Will's, if you're explaining, you're losing? The right is going to have to ask themselves how hard they want to push back before they risk giving it more life -- this isn't the swift boat thing where somebody's running ads on an on-going basis, for now this was a one-day story in a newspaper Republicans don't read. They must be scared that, as TPM speculates, other people have more on this and the Times rushed to scoop them. For now I say we just enjoy the push-back for what it is: panic, beautiful panic.
Is there a there there? (4.00 / 2)
If you read the NY Times article, it's all fairly 'suggestive', without having much evidence one way or the other.  

If nothing happened, what's the big deal?

Maybe there is more, and that will blow this out of the water - but right now, it seems like one of those articles that the guy who moved over to Washington Times writes - an intimation of wrongdoing - "something bad happened" - without delivering the goods.

The progressive blogs were all over those stories - I would hate for us to have a double standard, hackish standard.

the WaPo one is actually better (4.00 / 1)
All about the lobbying angle.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
I think it's pretty clear that ... (4.00 / 1)
..."there is more." This is the kind of story in which a smart newspaper team does not include everything they know or think they know in the first round because it's obvious there will be additional rounds. McCain's firm denial will have to be met by some firm reiterations and elaborations by the NYT or the paper will lose whatever credibility it retains - a problem with its liberal and remaining leftist readers since the right has hated it for decades. I'll be surprised if they don't have more in their quiver. But the Times has surprised me previously.
[ Parent ]
But when you run with an article on sex (0.00 / 0)
You can never take it back. McCain as adulterer is forever fixed in our minds. Lobbying improprieties, favors and illegalities will be proven up or down but the sex is here to stay.  
[ Parent ]
I remember Mickey Kaus "rumors" (0.00 / 0)
of him doing something unspeakable with a goat?

That joke came about because, Kaus kept pushing the story that John Edwards had an affair, even though both John Edwards and his (false) mistress had denied it, even though there wasn't evidence, etc.

How is this different?

[ Parent ]
Indeed (0.00 / 0)
In a sense I think what Fox News is doing with this story is what progressive organizations, political campaigns etc ought to be doing -- taking media sources to task when they run with non-stories that attempt to reinforce the appearance of unseemliness in the absence of having demonstrated anything actually unseemly.

Of course, there's two caveats here:

1. There's nothing specifically wrong with the NYT sharing the information they have with the public about this. I think the NYT behaved poorly in the amount of innuendo they packed into the story, and in their silly "THE RELATIONSHIP WAS DENIED TO BE ROMANTIC!" non-statement statements. But the general facts of the story-- McCain behaved questionably on behalf of a female lobbyist, and the staff was so concerned about the appearance of impropriety they played weird games to keep them apart-- there's no reason the public shouldn't in some fashion be allowed to know them.

2. It is really weird that the conservative organization that stepped up to denounce the NYT over this is incidentally simultaneously someone that claims to be a news organization.

2a. When was the last time you heard a "news" organization specifically argue that less news should have been reported? Maybe a news organization criticizing another for the tone or quality of their reporting would be a reasonable, or even positive thing. But Fox isn't complaining about the tone, or the innuendo, or really anything about the way the NYT reported the story except the fact the story was reported. In other words, Fox is a "news" organization specifically arguing for the suppression of facts, on partisan grounds. That's kind of breathtaking.

[ Parent ]
NYT story on McCain (0.00 / 0)
I've been wondering why Huckabee has been hanging around in this race when the math doesn't add up for him.  Maybe he had an inkling that this story was in the works--  or, maybe he helped provide some of the grist himself.

In any case, he is beginning to look dumb like fox...

Bamboozling the American electorate again (0.00 / 0)
Bush-Cheney strategy involves G.O.P. crossover voting to take out Hillary, marketing newcomer Obama, an "independent" ticket, and maybe even martial law

"Anyone who thinks America's master of dirty-tricks campaigning isn't busy undermining the 2008 presidential election is not paying attention. The only thing Rovean politics can't overcome with electronic voting machines, swiftboating and legions of cronies is a landslide victory - which is where Hillary Clinton was headed before Barack Obama dropped in out of the blue. Here's the inside scoop on how G.O.P. power players have ignored their own party this year to help the newcomer beat the New Deal democrat, along with plans to implement martial law if he doesn't."

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

People Who Live In Glass Houses MUST Throw Stones! (0.00 / 0)
Who knew?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
NYT deserves heat (0.00 / 0)
The article raises a lot of questions about an 8 year old story and provides few answers. It has the potential to destroy a campaign. I think the NYT deserves to be on the hot seat.
Many of you have the wrong priorities. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
By the grace of god, go I (0.00 / 0)
The story is mostly innuendo. Not much there there.
[ Parent ]
This will be unfolding for awhile (4.00 / 2)
Josh Marshall at TPM wrote:

At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was.

....I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go....Equally telling [] is the McCain camp's response and their clear unwillingness to address or deny any the key charges of the piece. (Read the statement closely. It's all bluster.)

Let's see what the second day stories look like. I gather there are a number of other reporters working on this.
We can't ignore the story because we feel bad shooting fish in a barrel. McCain will have to do a turn in front of the cameras acknowledging or denying what happened here.  

[ Parent ]
Marshall has the best take yet. (0.00 / 0)
No question that the timing of the story by the NYT is deadly for the GOP and I predict they will forever claim vast left wing MSM conspiracy. For some reason I feel their pain.
[ Parent ]
NYT got frightened off by McCain lawyers in December (4.00 / 1)
but are going public now because the New Republic was going to blow the whistle on their self-censorship.

Spare me your sympathy for McCain.  This low-life cast himself as a holier-than-thou ethics reformist, at the same time he was screwing a lobbyist who was representing interests before his Senate committee.  And who knows what implicit threats were made against the NYT to keep them quiet.

[ Parent ]
What's even more absurd about Fox News (4.00 / 1)
is the excessive coverage they've given to the Michelle Obama flap over the last 48 hours. Brit Hume and his panel have been almost giddy about it, eager to push the ridiculous "anti-American" meme. Yet when John McCain is acussed of going to bed with a lobbyist, Fox News pounces on the NY Times for being unfair and calls it a non-story. Hilarious.
GOP suppressed (0.00 / 0)
If McCain remains their candidate, we should redouble our efforts to get good candidates all the way down the ticket because Republican turnout will be severely depressed.
Perhaps this observation was a better one for the open primary diary.
Someone help me out (0.00 / 0)
I seem to remember at some point (in December or January?) that there was a rumor going around that the media was sitting on a story that it wasn't sure about publishing for some reason or another.  Does anyone remember that story about a non-story?  I think the popular speculation at the time was that the media was protecting Obama, although that was pretty much based on the probably flawed notion that Obama would be the only candidate to cause hand-wringing among journalists.  Could this be that story?

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
Found It (0.00 / 0)
Had the date wrong.  It was the end of October and it was a rumor that the LA Times had a sex scandal story.  Seems unlikely to be the same thing.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Fox May Protest Too Much (0.00 / 0)
Isn't the NYT story an incredible gift horse to McCain and the Republicans.  McCain has locked up the nomination and as many democrats have conceded he was the strongest of the republican candidates in the general.  The story - being thinly sourced and full of innuendo - focusses on ancient noodling that cannot be proven (in 8 years clothes and sheets are eihter given away or cleaned) even though the meat is the influence peddling.  This is what McCain got out of the deal:
1.  victim of the the NYT
2.  circling of the right wing wagons
3.  innoculation on influence peddling since the story is a sex story and the sex isn't there.  That knocks the rest of the story out.
4.  news out now when it can least hurt him - nomination sown up and general election almost 10 months ago.

Mr. Keller should definitely get a night in the Lincoln bedroom if McCain gets to the White House  

Fox News Issues Press Release Against NYT | 25 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox