About Bill Keller's Defense Of McCain Story
February 21, 2008 -- 1:55 PM EST // //

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.

---

---