A few days ago, the New York Times let on that it was about to publish an "explosive story" on the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz).
Since it was the Times, and since it was McCain, everyone expected a potentially game-altering revelation that could reshape the race all the way to Election Day.
Well, the accusation lived up to the hype, but the actual meat of the story did not. The Times breathlessly reported that McCain had such a close relationship with a female lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, that he did improper favors for her clients, such as calling the Federal Communications Commission to push for the allowance of television companies to control two stations in the same city. While unusual, this in and of itself is not illegal or immoral, and the Times failed to note the numerous occasions when McCain worked against Iseman's clients' wishes.
The real shocker in the story, however, was the insinuation that McCain and Iseman's relationship was not just professional, but sexual. Despite denials from both McCain and Iseman, the Times claimed that two former associates individually admitted that they had repeatedly confronted Senator McCain about his alleged inappropriate relationship with Iseman.
The paper has since come under fire for pushing this "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" accusation of an affair without any evidence beyond two anonymous sources. Generally speaking, anonymous sources can corroborate a story this explosive, but someone has to be willing to put their name on the line before a newspaper will decide to run such a potentially damaging article.
As Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic put it: "'Associates' - that's an umbrella term for friends, family members, aides and the like. But if the Times really had former paid campaign staffers - aides - making these allegations, it would have attributed them to 'aides.'"
Who might associates be? Who might disillusioned associates be?
How about Washington lobbyists who, a) may have known Vicki Iseman personally, b) supported McCain in 2000, c) would have been of significant enough stature to know McCain personally and d) either endorsed another candidate in 2008 or refused to endorse McCain?
The tip for this story originated in November, according to the New Republic - in other words, during the height of the primary season when McCain was beginning to make a comeback in New Hampshire.
Ambinder's hunch, which seems pretty spot-on, is that this was a bit of rumor-mongering by a rival campaign back in late November, when McCain was reestablishing himself as a potential problem for Romney. Why the Times waited until now to run it is unclear, but it certainly looks as though they waited until he had sewn up the nomination before unleashing the goods on him, hurting the Republicans' chances this November, and playing right into the hands of those who argue the Times has a political agenda.
So what does all this mean? In my view, it's a shot across the bow. The Times has signaled that the days when John McCain was their favorite son are over. In 2000, McCain's famously good relationship with the press got him tons of good media coverage, but that ship appears to have sailed. They've found a new golden boy: Barack Obama. In the coming months, the McCain folks need to get accustomed to the fact that they can no longer rely on their special relationship with the media in the way they used to.
Michael Sherry is a junior majoring in political science. He can be reached at Michael.Sherry@tufts.edu.
