John McCain in Trouble, the Times Under Siege Yesterday's New York Times article alleging that John McCain had an affair with a Washington lobbyist named Vicki Iseman has exposed the paper to intense criticism.

McCain has famously prided himself on being friendly and accessible to reporters, but that didn't stop campaign manager Rick Davis yesterday from releasing a fundraising letter calling the Times part of "the liberal attack machine." Radio host Laura Ingraham said the episode should teach the senator that the major newspapers are run by "partisans" and "piranhas."

The Washington Post has a hilarious story about Cindy McCain's "quiet strength." Looks more like Botox than dignity to me.

In all fairness, it's not just conservatives who aren't crazy about the story. Lots of folks wonder if the Times should have published it, given that the piece relied on anonymous sources and had no direct confirmation of an affair.

The Times is doing a progressive thing, one that is very unlike the Times and suggests that it knows it's out on a limb here: It's making its reporters and editors (sort of) available for reader questions on the story.

But I do laugh about the way the Times summarizes the story:

A recent New York Times article examined a number of decisions by Senator John McCain that raised questions about his judgment over potential conflicts of interest. The article included reporting on Mr. McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist whose clients often had business before the Senate committee led by Mr. McCain.

No mention of the word "affair"....

I expect that many of the questions will be inspired by the New Republic's fascinating story about the infighting at the Times over the publication of the McCain article.

This is one of those moments where the democratic nature of the journalism profession is really a wonderful thing—everyone can have an opinion.

Would you have published the story?

I'm genuinely torn.....
  ¶ 7:48 AM