I’m fine with it too, as long as they don’t make shit up and keep “accidentally” calling him Osama.

Oh wait, this is the NYT you’re talking about, not TV networks. My apologies.

I agree with Sam regarding Sen. Clinton for the most part. But, since she began her campaign for president, she’s raised gazillions of dollars. That’s lots of room for horse-trading that needs vetting. Sen. Obama, on the other hand, is an under-examined candidate. If The Times doesn’t dig into his record and life to the extent that it has Sen. McCain’s, I’ll roast it again.

And, Sam, I can picture Hunter rolling over in his grave, .45 in hand.

Thanks to you both for your comments.

Denny: These are, of course, The Rules, and you do them justice. However, as I’ve noted before, it’s good to be aware of when the rules serve you and when they don’t. A wise man once said:

“Some people will say that words like “scum” and “rotten” are wrong for Objective Journalism – which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.

I’ll leave it to you to guess the identity of that roguish journalist….

I think the NYT Times knew exactly they were doing with that hit piece. Now, every reporter in the country will be digging on McCain’s relationship with lobbyists(not that the digging is a bad thing). It might give them something juicy to report on later, after others do their leg work. Meanwhile, it will make them take their eye off the ball on some things that Obama and Hillary have in their closets. If you follow the money, looking at the Democratic candidates sources might cause some embarrassing discoveries.

Jeff

Excellent point. Another post for another time, given I’ve larded up this one quite a bit. But you’re right. Even The Times’ public editor didn’t approach that angle well. Thanks for your comment.

This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot….

I’m surprised you didn’t mention the idea that editorial interference might’ve declawed the story and reduced an “is” to a “seemed.” Maybe the real story is out there, and someone higher-up than the reporters decided the salacious sex angle was the way to go.

Just as there may be more (or less) to the story itself, there may be more or less to the story behind the story.

Perhaps the most disingenuous word a journalist can deploy is seemed. As a transitive verb, seem is used "to suggest uncertainty" — not, as The New York Times failed to do, tie one set of facts to another set of facts and thus conclude with…