Boston Globe declines to publish parent paper's McCain story

The Los Angeles Times' James Rainey this morning has a comprehensive examination of the unfolding controversy over an investigative article published in Thursday's New York Times regarding Sen. John McCain and his relationship with a Washington lobbyist and her clients.

The article, among other things, used anonymous sources to suggest as early as the second paragraph inappropriate behavior between the married senator and the female lobbyist. Not surprisingly, it was denounced by McCain, his ...

... campaign and other conservatives as a smear job just as the Arizona senator becomes the presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee.

It also aroused considerable criticism from readers of The Ticket, which opened a special comment page on the issue, and even in private communications among fellow journalists across the country, who often rush to defend one another. "I wouldn't put my name on it," one colleague messaged.

But one interesting aspect of this combined political and professional controversy went widely unnoticed. The Boston Globe, which is wholly owned by the New York Times, chose not to publish the article produced by its parent company's reporters.

Instead, the Globe published a version of the same story written by the competing Washington Post staff. That version focused almost exclusively on the pervasive presence of lobbyists in McCain's campaign and did not mention the sexual relationship that the Times article hinted at but did not describe or document and which the senator and lobbyist have denied.

On Thursday the Globe's website, Boston.com, did provide a link to the Times story on the Times' website. But such a stark editorial decision by a major newspaper raises suspicions that even the Globe's editors, New York Times Co. employees all, had their own concerns about the content of their parent company's story.

Rainey asked the Globe's editor, Martin Baron, about that decision. His eloquent reply: "No comment."

When journalists hear such rhetorical avoidance from public figures and politicians, they usually take it as confirmation of their suspicions.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[Nate]

If the NY Times had simply done an article attacking McCain for improperly aiding a lobbyist, I have no problem with that.

If the NYT had done an article alleging that McCain did have an affair, I have no problem with that (assuming they relied on credible sources).

What the NYT actually did is an article alleging that he improperly aided a lobbyist while alluding to the possibility of an affair. At no point do the writers draw the conclusion that he did have an affair. Why? The writers get to include the "sexy" angle of an affair, but they can distance themselves from it by claiming they never actually said he had an affair.

The fallout from this is actually going to benefit McCain and harm the NYT. The LATimes hatchet job on Arnold before the Recall election had a similar effect, even though (in contrast to the present situation) the LATimes article actually included well-documented accounts of misconduct by the Gov.

All in all, this is not on the finer moments for the NYT. Kudos to the Boston Globe for showing some restraint and declining to run the article.

[Vicki Hampton]

I think that this is a perfect example of what the definition of a smear campain is and it was aimed at Senator McCain for what reason and who is behind it? There are just so many who would benefit from it and that would be Obama or Huckabee, but which one? But it could just be someone with a personal vindetta such as Howard Dean? There is no proof and the sources are anonymous the proof is where? There is none and there is no source as far as I am concerned. I had respect for The New York Times up until this point and now I have cancelled my subscription and i think of it as a rag out to make a dollar at anyones expense and is a vulture like all the rest. The New York Times may have sold a few more papers but I guarantee that it lost a lot more subscribers than it sold papers which will be losing money in the long term.

[Mark West]

Times,

Shoddy journalism. Can't trust em. . .

[julia]

I seem to recall that the institutional standard you cited for publishing rumors was somewhat different when the source paper was the National Enquirer and the rumors involved a fictional affair for Senator Edwards. At the time, you said that your paper was forced to publish once the candidate commented on the rumors, as Senator McCain did in mid-December.

I'm struggling mightily to isolate the variable.

[Keys]

“During his current campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr. McCain has played down his attacks on the corrupting power of money in politics, aware that the stricter regulations he championed are unpopular in his party,” the New York Times article claimed. A small portion of party members and voters may be vexed over how the regulations clamped down on contributions to parties and candidates, but a substantial portion of the voters were and are vexed over the act's offense against freedom of speech. It barred certain political ads shortly before elections, when many people have a heightened interest in candidates and issues. Think Wisconsin Right to Life. That has zero to do with the “corrupting power” of money.

But there’s another reason why Senator McCain may be cutting down on his “attacks on the corrupting power of money in politics”: McCain-Feingold. “By 2002, he [McCain] had succeeded in passing the McCain-Feingold Act, which transformed American politics by banning ‘soft money,’ the unlimited donations from corporations, unions and the rich that were funneled through the two political parties to get around previous laws,” the story also noted. Times staff wanted to damage McCain’s candidacy and bent their story to suit their partisan goal. How else can one explain the story’s failure to connect its own conclusion about McCain-Feingold to the reduced emphasis on money in politics?

There's much more that's wrong with the story, but one has to be concise here. Everyone involved in writing the article, including Marilyn Thompson, every editor who passed on it, and everyone who okayed its spot atop the newspaper’s Page One ought to be reassigned to other jobs, not related to news.

[Miles E. Tilly]

Amazing appropriately describes the reaction from the right, when one of its heros is exposed for what he really is -- a hypocrit and criminal. However, let some organization like FOX News "swiftboat" a Democrat and these same people do everything within their poser to make the lies stick and damage the victim. Given the facts, it's apparent that John McCain is a somewhat tame characiture of Dubya. Of course, the right will never admit the great harm they, and those they have put in power, have done to our once great country. The only question now is can the damage be repaired.