Woodstein They Are Not

There was a time in American politics where reporters employed by major newspapers knew how to research a story and present their argument in a direct manner with lots of facts to back things up. Most people forget that Woodward and Bernstein spent more than seven months researching their story before they could even crack a whisper of what happened at the Watergate Hotel. However, many reporters today do not have the patience of the famed 70’s duo. They want the notoriety and fame without having the patience or work ethic to actually achieve it properly. Some of that is due to fear that someone is going to scoop them on an important story (especially in the days of New Media), but most is due to a certain laziness fostered by a deep desire to truly believe the content of the story rather than risk finding it to be not true.

Having read the salient points of the NY Times article on John McCain and the New Republic’s article on why the story was held on to, provides a stark contrast to those media glory days of the mid-1970’s. Some quick background: a NY Times reporter received a hot tip in November regarding special influence that a telecommunications lobbyist may have had with Mr. McCain in the late 90’s and early part of his first Presidential campaign. This reporter got help from his editor in the form of three other reporters. They dug around and managed to get statements from two former McCain staffers who had not left on the best of terms. The Times reporters wrote up their piece and submitted it for publishing. The editor balked and told them to do more work, as it was too airy and speculative. Anger and resentment followed, as the reporters believed “they had nailed it.” They did contact the McCain campaign and submitted a set of written requests. Meanwhile, Mr. McCain and the lobbyist, Ms. Iseman, both retained council and vehemently denied (on the record) both the special treatment and the innuendo that they had engaged in an affair. Matt Drudge got a hold of the story (possibly from one of the Times reporters themselves, angry at the foot-dragging), allowing the McCain camp to act quickly, gathering records and evidence countering the Times’ claims. Whispers continued until the New Republic decided to run a story showing the backbiting and politics of the NY Times newsroom regarding the story. Faced with this embarrassment, the Times published the article.

In the three months that the NY Times has worked this story, they have not managed to show any concrete evidence that the story is true. Any record of Mr. McCain showing favorable treatment to the telecommunications companies represented by Ms. Iseman would have an obvious paper trail in the form of letters and recommendations filed by him to the chairman of the FCC. All letters known in the public archives show no such favorable treatment and the Times had not produced any other documents stating otherwise. Regarding the suggested affair, no staffers have come forward suggesting the two were engaging in such a manner, nor does the Times offer any evidence that the two were seen in any manner other than at public functions or in a business environment.

The bulk of the article is actually devoted to the Keating-5 scandal, which occurred nearly 20 years ago. In that event, five senators were found to have accepted campaign donations from Charles Keating, who was being investigated following the collapse of the Savings and Loan industry. All five senators were brought before the Senate Ethics committee. Although they were all cleared of anything illegal, the panel reprimanded four of them and censured Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA). Only two of the senators, John Glenn (D-OH) and John McCain (R-AZ) returned to the Senate when their terms came up. It was this incident that lit a fire under Mr. McCain’s butt regarding campaign finance reform.

Given that this incident has been a matter of history and public record for over 15 years, it seems odd that the NY Times would devote the majority of its article to this incident in an attempt to buttress the more recent allegations. Rather than providing background and clarity, it adds an additional odor to what is already giving off the air of a poorly researched hack job.

Now, there is always the possibility that the allegations are true. But the ineptitude and lack of devotion to research renders any point that they attempt to make moot as it is washed away in a bath of perceived partisan vitriol. Dan Rather, to his dying day, will probably swear that the allegations of Mr. Bush’s conduct while in the Texas Air National Guard were true even if the memos were proven to be false (fake but accurate). However, that does not change the fact that this appears to be driven by faith in the rightness of his convictions rather than any solid facts. Faith should be left to the confines of religion. Any foray into the world of politics only makes the speaker look foolish and untrustworthy.