![]() But this is a parse too far: of course the Iseman section implied a romantic relationship. Given that the Iseman revelations took up a bare percentage of the article’s words, that’s an argument, I suppose. Perhaps he means the article taken as a whole wasn’t about an affair, that it was meant to establish, as Keller writes, that McCain was “sometimes careless” to avoid the appearance of impropriety around moneyed interests. ![]() But it was not that, either explictly or implicitly.Īnd so Keller denies that the article was about an affair, implied or not. The key section: The McCain campaign and some of its supporters set out aggressively to portray the article in question as a story about an unsubstantiated affair. Beyond the symbolism of agreeing to say something-anything!-it concedes absolutely nothing.Īnd I’ll be surprised if Keller’s online op-ed goes any further. In fact, I’d argue it’s that very difference that makes this “Note” sweet enough for the Times to swallow. Again, journalists routinely imply things that they do not conclude, by presenting suggestive facts and claims and leaving the conclusions up to the audience. I’ve thought a lot about the Iseman story since then, and while I’ve had some queasy second thoughts, I’m still, when it boils down to it, not ready to retract my defense. Sually the best journalists can do is imply causation: “Mayor Hizzenhonor overruled city engineers and moved a planned sewage plant after accepting campaign donations from a neighborhood association.” A lot of journalism magic happens between readers’ ears. So much of reporting, especially reporting on situations where the facts are hidden, unclear, or developing, depends on creating meaning from only what is known, which is often a set of suggestive, but not definitive, facts. That’s certainly true, but as far as journalism goes, it’s an awfully wrongheaded criticism. Here’s some of what I wrote the afternoon the story was printed: One of the chief complaints about The New York Times story on the relationship between McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman is that the paper is implying more than it has proven. ![]() One year ago, when the Iseman piece was received to near-universal opprobrium, I felt very lonely using that logic to defend the Times’s reporting. The Times also plans to run in Friday’s edition a note to readers saying that the paper did not state or imply that there was an improper relationship between Iseman and McCain.Įmphasis added, because I think E&P has this very wrong: You see, there’s quite a bit of difference between “imply” and “conclude.” ![]() Executive Editor Bill Keller will counter with his own Web essay. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.Īgreeing to run the statement is part of a settlement between the Times and Iseman, according to Editor & Publisher: The settlement, which does not include any payment, retraction or apology from the Gray Lady, includes an agreement for the Times to post an online Op-Ed from Iseman’s attorneys. The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. 21, 2008, about Senator John McCain and his record as an ethics reformer who was at times blind to potential conflicts of interest included references to Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. Here it is in full: An article published on Feb. The New York Times has just posted a “ Note to Readers” regarding last year’s highly controversial story that included information on John McCain’s relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |