[T]his is not an instance of a liberal news outlet seeing
an existing story through the prism of its bias. It is an
instance of a liberal news outlet going out of its way to
assault a candidate it would prefer not to see become
president.
Repeat offender
Power Line
The New York Times' story about John McCain's alleged involvement with a female lobbyist brings to mind its infamous coverage of the alleged rape by members of the Duke lacrosse team. As Stuart Taylor recounted in his book on that sorry affair, 'Until Proven Innocent', the Times reporter who initially covered the story, Joe Drape, quickly learned facts that strongly tended to exonerate the accused players. The Times, however, refused to print his material and soon replaced him with Duff Wilson who took a pro-prosecution slant, thereby enabling the Times to peddle its preferred narrative of white privilege and racial oppression.
In McCain's case, the Times received "exculpatory" material from his campaign which documented instances in which McCain did not take positions congenial to the female lobbyist in question. The Times refused to use or acknowledge that material, selecting only instances that enabled it to pursue its preferred narrative that McCain was unduly influenced by that lobbyist.
In the lacrosse story, the Times flitted back and forth between the rape narrative, which it could not support, and a narrative it thought was a slam dunk - the Duke lacrosse team as a bastion of white male privilege and sexism. In the words of Times sports Tom Jolly:
<<< "From the beginning, we've felt this story had two main elements: one was the allegation of rape; the other was the general behavior of a high-level sports team at a prestigious university." >>>
But the Times' fall back narrative had little more merit than the rape allegations. The lacrosse players, on the whole, were good students. Moreover, early on they were endorsed by the female students that probably knew them best, Duke's female lacrosse players. But by flogging both "elements" of the story, the Times was able to make the whole seem greater than the sum of its parts.
In McCain's case, the Times is even shiftier. It insinuates a sexual relationship, falls back to an influence-peddling claim, and in case none of that sticks, argues that McCain isn't as pure as he makes himself out to be. But, again, the latter claims are based on a one-sided presentation of the facts.
In the lacrosse story, the Times steadfastly refused to identify the source of the accusations against the players (i.e., the alleged victim). It also failed to disclose the fact that the accuser had a criminal record, even as it trumpeted the fact that one of the accused had been charged with assault for punching someone. In McCain's case, the Times also relies on anonymous sources.
There is, however, one important difference between the two stories. In the Duke case, a prosecutor was pursuing a criminal investigation. Prosecutors don't normally pursue matters that are patently devoid of merit. Thus, the Times' journalistic sin did not consist of covering the story, which was facially legitimate, but rather of allowing its biases to govern the nature of the coverage.
In McCain's case, the Times originated the story without an evidentiary basis sufficient to persuade even its fellow liberal organs that there is anything there. Thus, this is not an instance of a liberal news outlet seeing an existing story through the prism of its bias. It is an instance of a liberal news outlet going out of its way to assault a candidate it would prefer not to see become president.
To comment on this post, go here.
plnewsforum.com
powerlineblog.com |
