Friday, February 22, 2008


Maybe others have said this already, but let me say it anyway: Suggestions of adultery are to the New York Times story about John McCain's relationships with lobbyists what those documents were to the CBS story about George W. Bush's National Guard service -- non-essential elements that wound up poisoning a good story, after being included even though it was clear that they'd inspire outrage and would therefore need to be absolutely bulletproof (which they weren't).

I wonder if the consequences are going to be the same -- that now the media will avoid the story of McCain's relationships with lobbyists altogether because the Times piece made the story radioactive, and that The New York Times, in particular, will back away from other stories that challenge McCain and take pains to mollify him, just as CBS backed away from tough reporting about Bush in the aftermath of the National Guard fiasco. We'll see.


UPDATE: This appears to be my third stupid prediction of the week -- the press doesn't seem to be backing down.

No comments: