Paul Krugman Says He Was "Censored" By New York Times!
(February 22, 2008 -- 5:36 PM EDT // link // )

Hey, whaddaya know! It looks as if there is a level of snarkiness that is considered out of bounds for The New York Times Op ed page!

Over on his blog, Paul Krugman reveals today that the paper told him he couldn't use the following lede on his column on last year's State of the Union Address:

“Before the State of the Union address, there had been hints and hopes that President Bush would offer a serious plan to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Instead, however, he took refuge in alcohol.”

"I'm almost never censored at The Times," Krugman writes.

I note this not to defend mockery of human tragedies such as alcoholism, but merely to note that this shows that the paper's editors will, if they feel like something a columnist says is out of bounds, step in and intervene. This strikes me as highly newsworthy, mainly because no such intervention seems to have occurred when Maureen Dowd wrote demented lines such as this of Obama the other day...

Just like Hollywood starlets, he works out religiously and he can make a three-course meal out of a Nicorette.

...or this about Al Gore in 1999...

Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating.

To be clear, it's understandable that the editors would step in and say that making fun of W.'s problem constitutes going too far. The question, though, is why these depraved Dowdisms -- while perhaps not in the same category as the line about Bush -- don't also count as going too far. After all, they're such glaring insults to taste and decency that they merit an intervention, too, if only for the sake of the readers.

As Digby lamented the other day, there seems to be nothing that will get Times brass to take Dowd gently aside and say it's time to bag it with this sort of stuff. But now we know that there is a line somewhere that can be crossed, however. What a relief!

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

The "No One Is Contesting The Facts" Dodge
(February 22, 2008 -- 1:03 PM EDT // link // )

This is worth one more look, because you hear this journalistic defense constantly, whether the topic is Dems or Republicans. Call it the "no one is contesting the facts" dodge.

In a chat with readers today, New York Times managing editor Jill Abramson defended the big McCain-lobbyist story by saying this:

During the long process of our reporting on the story, we attempted, time and time again, to persuade our sources to go on the record and let us use their names. Again, there are named sources in the story but some sources continued to insist on maintaining the cloak of anonymity. As we neared publication, both the editors and the reporting team once again tested the veracity of these sources to make sure every fact in the story was accurate. We were all fully satisfied.

Right, but the issue is not simply whether the individual facts, as rendered in the article, were accurate. Rather, the question is whether certain facts in the story should have been reported at all in their current form.

Let's be as clear as possible about this. Here are some key "facts" from the article:

Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself...according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator’s advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene.

Even if this info is 100% true, there's still a problem here: The inclusion of the fact that some advisers worried that McCain might have had an affair suggests the possibility that he had an affair without settling the question of whether he actually had one or not.

This is the core issue. If you are going to report such anonymous worries about a possible romantic relationship, readers deserve a real effort to settle the question of whether it actually occurred. If you can't settle that question -- or if you can't share what you know its answer to be -- then suggesting that it might have happened is highly questionable. While it makes sense to evaluate such decisions on a case by case basis, this one was a clear call. So, no, saying that all the facts as rendered in the article were accurate just isn't a defense.

I'm bringing this up again because it's a line you hear constantly, and it's a dodge. And with that, this blog is finished with this topic.

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

Times Editors And Reporters Taking Reader Questions About McCain Story
(February 22, 2008 -- 9:34 AM EDT // link // )

Via Romenesko, this is noteworthy: The editors and reporters who worked on the big and controversial McCain story that ran in The Times yesterday are taking questions about the piece from the public.

Good. We've obviously seen plenty of instances lately of reporters and editors taking reader questions, but here you have the members of the team who put this piece together making themselves available to answer questions about the article.

Here's what I would ask:

* If the paper is going to report that anonymous sources were worried that McCain might have had an affair, isn't it incumbent on the paper to come closer to establishing whether or not it actually happened, and share the evidence one way or the other with readers? If the paper is unable to establish whether or not it actually occurred, isn't it irresponsible to simply report that anonymous sources say it might have happened?

* The New Republic reported yesterday that in December Times executive editor Bill Keller told the piece's reporters that he was holding the piece because he could not secure documentary proof of the affair. Is this true? If so, what changed since then? Given that the article contained no such proof, why did he then decide to run the piece?

* Why include any mention of the affair at all? Couldn't the piece have run without this element? Would the piece been diminished in any way without it? Indeed, mightn't the piece have been stronger without it, since the anonymously sourced suggestion of a romantic affair served as a distraction from the arguably more important dimension of the piece -- i.e., the reporting on the politician-lobbyist relationship and the broader pattern at play here?

* Didn't inclusion of badly sourced intimations about an affair make it easier for McCain -- and the Republican National Committee -- to attack the piece and try to discredit what was valid and solid in it? Does Keller now regret including the affair stuff?

You can ask your questions right here.

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

Readers Comment On Times McCain Story
(February 21, 2008 -- 5:52 PM EDT // link // )

I hope to do more of this when the comments section is up and running. Here are a couple of reader emails on the big New York Times piece on McCain and the Lady Lobbyist:

TPM Reader LB:

I think it's entirely possible that there is more to the story than the Times felt it could publish, but strong possibility is not certainty, and especially after his last run for the presidency was destroyed by a whisper campaign of lies and innuendo, I think it's doubly important not to risk causing essentially the same thing happening to him again. Not to mention that those of us who were incensed by the unconscionable way the Times dogged the Clintons and helped to damage Bill Clinton's presidency by publishing innuendo and half-truths should not rejoice to see the same thing done to someone else, even if it's someone from the opposition.

Frankly, I don't care whether or not McCain had an extramarital affair 8 years ago. That's his business, and his wife's, and that of the other woman involved. I do care whether friendship or an affair or any other undue influence caused him to act to benefit a lobbyist or her clients in a way he otherwise would not have. If the Times (or any other media outlet) has publishable hard evidence that any personal relationship with Ms Iseman has resulted in McCain's giving undue consideration to her firm's clients, then they should say so. If they have not, then they should shut up about it until they do.

I'd agree that fairly or not, bad memories of the Bill-impeachment stuff -- and of the role of the traditional news orgs, the Times included, in that whole circus -- drove some of the irritation with the piece.

Meanwhile, TPM Reader RS agrees that tossing in the allegations about the affair only distracted from the lobbyist-politician side of the story:

While I was watching MSNBC this morning, while Scarborough and Buchanan were just foaming at the mouth about the Times and the sex angle, David Gregory and even Chris Matthews were actually trying, gingerly, to focus on the substantive corruption angle. This is a pivotal moment: it can prove to be the opening that's been sorely needed to get people to look at the real McCain, or it can be the nail in the coffin of any attempt to get people's eyes open.

Reader emails have decidedly tipped in the direction of criticism of the piece.

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

About Bill Keller's Defense Of McCain Story
(February 21, 2008 -- 1:55 PM EDT // link // )

Updated below.

Times exec editor Bill Keller has a statement out defending the story about John McCain's relationship with a lobbyist:

"On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. In all the uproar, no one has challenged what we actually reported. On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready.

" 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it."

The notion that "no one has challenged" what was "actually reported" is worth a look, since it's the sort of defense you hear often. It's basically a dodge. The issue here isn't that the individual facts, as rendered here, are questionable. The story reports that unnamed former advisers were concerned that a romantic relationship might be going on, and thus intervened, but even if this is factually true, what does it prove about whether the affair happened or not?

The problem is that it's basically impossible to report something like this without also suggesting that an affair has taken place. Given the nature of such explosive allegations, it seems fair to ask that before suggesting something like this, a news org should establish something beyond the fact that unnamed advisers were concerned that it might be happening. Maybe the paper had established more but couldn't report it. But if you can't present some kind of solid evidence, one way or the other, as to whether such a thing happened, than you should be reluctant to suggest the possibility at all.

Indeed, according to a piece just posted by The New Republic, this lack of solid enough evidence was precisely why Keller held off on publishing the story:

In late December, according to Times sources, Keller told the reporters and the story's editor, Rebecca Corbett, that he was holding the piece in part because they could not secure documentary proof of the alleged affair beyond anecdotal evidence. Keller felt that given the on-the-record-denials by McCain and Iseman, the reporters needed more than the circumstantial evidence they had assembled to prove the case. The reporters felt they had the goods.

What changed between then and now? The piece has none of the "documentary proof" that Keller reportedly wanted in December. Presuming TNR is right, the most charitable possibility is that the proof was brought to Keller but the paper couldn't report it. But this leaves readers at sea and again raises questions as to whether it made sense to go there at all.

In a way, the piece might actually have been stronger if the allegations of an affair were left out and it had focused only on the allegations of an improper lobbyist-politician relationship, where there seems to be real meat to the story. Tossing in the allegations of a romantic affair without including more solid evidence just diverts everyone's focus and distracts from some of the real issues the story raised.

*************************************************************

Update: Time's Michael Scherer has a very sane take on the story, and Ana Marie Cox adds a bunch of interesting detail about the back-story here.

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

About That Times Story On McCain's Relationship
(February 21, 2008 -- 10:45 AM EDT // link // )

Let's try a little experiment. Let's take the meat of the big New York Times story and substitute the words "Dem Presidential Hopeful" for "John McCain":

Early in Senator Dem Presidential Hopeful’s first run for the White House eight years ago, waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.

A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.

When news organizations reported that Mr. Dem Presidential Hopeful had written letters to government regulators on behalf of the lobbyist’s client, the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.

Mr. Dem Presidential Hopeful, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40, both say they never had a romantic relationship. But to his advisers, even the appearance of a close bond with a lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee Mr. Dem Presidential Hopeful led threatened the story of redemption and rectitude that defined his political identity.

If these words had appeared on the front page of The New York Times, wouldn't we all be yelling and stamping our feet about "panty sniffing" and condemning the use of anonymous sources who suggest a possible affair that may or may not have happened and wasn't directly alleged by anyone?

That's a sincere question. Wouldn't we?

After all, the above grafs appear to constitute the meat of this story. The gist of it seems to be that according to anonymous sources, eight years ago McCain's aides intervened in a relationship between him and a female lobbyist that may or may not have been sexual, and may or may not have constituted improper influence peddling, because they were worried that something untoward might be happening and were concerned about what her appearances with him in public looked like.

This is basically the core allegation here, and it's wrapped up in layers of implication about McCain's tone-deafness when it comes to appearances and about his history providing precedent for alleged questionable behavior vis a vis influence peddling in this case.

The suggestion that the relationship might have been sexual, which is made at the top and towards the end of the story, basically amounts to an allegation that anonymous sources said there was concern that the relationship might have become romantic. Anonymous sources say McCain acknowledged behaving "inappropriately," but the story doesn't say how. Again: How would we react to this if it were written about Senator Dem Presidential Hopeful?

Former McCain aide John Weaver is quoted on the record saying that he met with the woman, but his quotes are inconclusive as to what it was specifically about her conduct that worried McCain advisers.

To be clear, there very well may be much more to the story that is yet unknown. As Josh wrote last night, the story reads as if it had the meat lawyered out of it, and it's perfectly possible that The Times went with this because it knew lots more that it couldn't report. And as Mark Kleiman notes, more reporting by the AP is showing that there may be some meat to the lobbying side of the story.

But if you merely evaluate the words that are on the page of The Times, when it comes to the question of any affair you can't help but conclude, as Matthew Yglesias did, that they just didn't have or couldn't share the goods on an alleged romantic relationship and thus shouldn't have gone there.

*******************************************************************

Update: Times exec editor Bill Keller responds to all the criticism of the story.

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

Will Obama Camp Respond To Wingnut Slime Machine And O'Reilly's "Lynching" Comment?
(February 20, 2008 -- 5:33 PM EDT // link // )

As you may have heard by now, Bill O'Reilly used the words "lynching" and "Michelle Obama" in the same sentence. This, needless to say, wasn't very nice. Here's the quote, courtesy of Media Matters:

"I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down."

The O'Reilly comment was a response to Michelle's claim the other day that her husband's candidacy have made her "really proud" of this country for the first time.

That O'Reilly would traffic in the rank and the despicable is dog bites man, of course. The real question is, Will Michelle Obama or the Obama campaign respond to this?

In addition to O'Reilly, Michelle's comment has had the wingnut machine running on all cylinders for around 24 hours or so, pumping slime of a particularly vile shade of green in her direction. This is, of course, only the merest hint of what the Obamas will face should he become the nominee. Yet there's been no counter-attack or clarification from her until this afternoon, when Michelle said this...

Is this really going to do it? Look, I recognize that the question of whether to engage in a public argument about racially charged comments, such as those by O'Reilly, is a particularly tricky calculus for the Obama camp. And the Obamas have a primary to win right now. But really, it would be nice if the Obama team proved that they're willing to hit back against the wingnut slime merchants -- hard.

I mean, O'Reilly used the word lynching when talking about Michelle. Here you have a perfect opening for Michelle or a designated surrogate to deliver a toughly-worded -- and simultaneously high-minded -- response that nails O'Reilly directly between the eyes for his ugliness and pillories his wingnut colleagues for their phony piety and counterfeit patriotism. Remember how effectively Elizabeth Edwards made hash of Ann Coulter when she called John a "faggot"?

The Obamas obviously have the rhetorical dexterity to do something like this and more. If they did, it would go a long way towards taking the steam out of questions being raised by their rivals as to whether they have what it takes to survive a general election. Seems like a missed opportunity. Of course, even if this wasn't quite the right moment, there will be plenty more such opportunities ahead.

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

No One Will Listen To John Harris And Jim VandeHei, Part 973
(February 20, 2008 -- 11:21 AM EDT // link // )

I'm going to keep doing this again and again as circumstances warrant. Sorry.

A couple months ago The Politico's John Harris and Jim VandeHei published an extraordinarily sensible mea culpa about political coverage. In it, the duo offered this simple and inarguable guideline:

As far as what’s bad, there is generally one good answer to excesses and hype in political journalism: Respect the voters. That means waiting to find out what they really think.

Today, the Associated Press' Ron Fournier blithely ignored this very sound advice:

After 10 consecutive defeats — including a heartbreaker in tailor-made Wisconsin on Tuesday — Hillary Rodham Clinton can't win the nomination unless Obama makes a major mistake or her allies reveal something damaging about the Illinois senator's background. Don't count her out quite yet, but Wisconsin revealed deep and destructive fractures in the Clinton coalition.

It's panic-button time.

She can't win unless this or that happens? Look, it's all well and good to point out that Hillary's coalition is cracking and to suggest that she's in real trouble. But millions of people still have yet to go to the polls. There are at least two head-to-head debates ahead. Yes, things look exceedingly bleak for her. But is it really true that the only conceivable way she can win is if Obama commits a huge flub or the Clinton camp digs up an Obama scandal?

Come on, now. Anything can happen in politics. Fournier's pieces always note at the bottom that he's spent nearly two decades covering politics, so if there's anyone who should know this, it's him.

So let's bag the pronouncements about what can't happen, if only out of respect for the voters. There's simply no reason not to extend them the respect of letting them have their say.

Harris and VandeHei are among the most respected journalists in the business. Why won't anyone listen to them?

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

Politico's Roger Simon Defends Story On Hillary And Pledged Delegates
(February 19, 2008 -- 3:25 PM EDT // link // )

The most-debated story of the day in political circles is this one in The Politico by Roger Simon reporting that the Hillary campaign is plotting to flip Obama's pledged delegates to her side.

The story was prominently featured on Mark Halperin's The Page and on Drudge this morning, and Hillary has already taken hits in the liberal blogosphere here and here.

The Hillary campaign is adamantly denying the story. But in several emails to me, Simon defended his reporting.

On the face of it, the story's sourcing looks pretty thin. Here's how it opens:

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination.

This strategy was confirmed to me by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday.

This is unequivocal: The Hillary campaign has settled on this as a "strategy," a high-ranking Clinton official confirms, according to Simon. But here are the only two direct quotes from any Clinton official in the story:

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official told me Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.”

...and...

If, however, after the April 22 Pennsylvania primary the pledged delegate count looks very close, the Clinton official said, “[both] sides will start working all delegates.”

This seems quite a bit less definitive than the story's lede. Here you have a single anonymous Hillary adviser predicting that if this results in a stalemate, both sides will chase each other's delegates -- not that a particular strategy has been settled on by the Hillary camp.

I asked Simon if the official had said anything other than these quotes to indicate that a "strategy" had been settled upon, as his lede reported as fact. Simon declined to say, but pointed to this graf in the story, the suggestion being that Camp Hillary had been offered a chance to deny the story but didn't:

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer told me Monday he assumes the Obama campaign is going after delegates pledged to Clinton, though a senior Obama aide told me he knew of no such strategy.

The problem, of course, is that from this text we don't know what Singer was asked. So I asked Simon whether he had given Singer a chance to directly deny the story's central allegation. He replied: "Yes, absolutely. It was very direct."

So, presuming this is true, here's where we are. We know that an anonymous Clinton adviser predicted that if this results in a stalemate, both sides would fight for each other's pledged dels. Simon took that to mean that the Clinton camp had evolved a "strategy" to do this, and took some form of this notion to Singer, who didn't deny it, and instead tried to turn it back on Obama.

So yes, this stuff was worth sharing with readers in some form. But it seems clear that more reporting would have cleared up key questions, such as how seriously this idea was taken by the Hillary campaign or at what levels it was discussed.

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

Memo To Media Figures: The Presidential Race Isn't Being Conducted To Entertain You
(February 18, 2008 -- 11:52 AM EDT // link // )

WaPo's Howard Kurtz has a pretty good rundown of how lopsided and imbalanced the press coverage of Hillary has been this cycle, and I wanted to flag this little nugget that he slips in at the end of the piece...

While few in the media world will say so out loud, a Hillary collapse ("The Fall of the House of Clinton," as a Weekly Standard cover put it last month) is a more dramatic outcome than a win by the woman originally depicted as inevitable. But there is considerable danger in writing that story prematurely.

I'm glad Kurtz is warning his colleagues not to write the story of Hillary's demise in advance. But this suggestion that media insiders think a Hillary loss is a "more dramatic outcome" than any other is crying out for comment.

I mean, the presidential race isn't being conducted to provide drama and amusement for members of the media. It's being waged to pick the next president. You know, most powerful person in the world, critical moment in history, finger on the nuke button, environment in crisis, all that boring and earnest stuff.

While Kurtz doesn't say so directly, he's clearly floating the notion that a key thing driving some media figures and their editorial choices is a preference for the Fall of Hillary narrative. To be clear, this isn't to knock Kurtz, He's the ultimate D.C. media insider, and it's good to have someone suggesting -- from inside the belly of the Beltway media beast -- that this is part of the media dynamic at play here.

It shouldn't be, of course, but as Atrios has repeatedly noted, press coverage is determined to a lopsided degree by whichever narrative is deemed more entertaining by members of the media. It's just one of the many ugly realities we keep having to deal with in cycle after cycle.

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.

When Editors Do Bad Things To Decent Copy
(February 18, 2008 -- 8:45 AM EDT // link // )

The other day I noted that New York Times reporter Kit Seelye had stuck a wholly gratuitous plug for Matt Drudge into one of her stories. I asked whether this was yet another example of reporters giving Drudge a plug in hopes of getting linked on his site.

It turns out, though, that an editor stuck the reference in. TPM Reader CR emailed Seelye the other day to ask for a response to the Drudge question, and Seelye emailed back this (which she signed off on my posting):

Thanks for asking. I happen to agree with (most of) what Mr. Sargent says, and had he asked, he would have learned that an editor inserted the Drudge reference into my story.

Sincerely,

Kit Seelye

This is a fair response, and it hits on one of the problems with doing this kind of blogging. To do it, you need to be able to presume that people wrote the words that are under their bylines. But of course you can't really presume this, since layers of editors constantly stick their hands into the mix and so forth. On the other hand, it seems like too much to have to verify that a given reporter wrote every word under his or her byline every single time you blog about a piece.

The possibility that folks will take a hit for bad things done by editors is just one of the hazards of the profession. At the same time, in order to approach this stuff fairly, we really do need to keep in mind that much of the journalism brought to you by the big news orgs is the result of collaborative efforts.

The comments section is broken and currently undergoing repair. To reach the homepage of this blog, click here.