Times editor shocked at reaction

The New York Times executive editor says he is "shocked" at the volume of the response to the paper's hatchet job yesterday on John McCain.

Ben Keller says:

Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction (including more than 2,400 reader comments posted on our Web site). I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.

The editors say they expected a reaction, but primarily from the McCain camp in trying to beat down the story.

Keller says the piece was part of an effort to do a "serial biography" of the candidates as they move through the election season. The profiles are intended to contrast current events with the candidate's

Keller continues:

The point of this "Long Run" installment was that, according to people who know him well, this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation. The story cites several examples, and quotes friends and admirers talking of this apparent contradiction in his character. That is why some members of his staff were so alarmed by the appearance of his relationship with Ms. Iseman. And that, it seemed (and still seems) to us, was something our readers would want to know about a man who aspires to be president.

The disappointing thing here is that Keller doesn't realize that what readers want are facts. Yes, it's a fact that the staff was concerned, but there is no proof that their concerns had any basis. What's more, Ms. Iseman is only a semi-public figure and she got dragged into this issue without regard for the impact it might have on her.

Lastly, the Times says the piece is about McCain's disconnect between being concerned about appearances, yet being cavalier about them. If this is truly the case, the newspaper should have been able to come up with other, more appropriate and verifiable examples. If it could not, it raises the question of whether the Times actually had a story or was simply trying to build one from the Keating scandal and the alleged relationship.

It took the times three months to decide to publish the story. That in itself is not damning, but if the newspaper worked the story for that long and still could not prove its case, it should have walked away from it.

There is no shame in publishing a story that cannot be proven. Even the Boston Globe opted not to publish the piece written by its parent company.

The Times usually gets it right. This time they dropped the ball. They should acknowledge the mistake and move on.

    -- Jim Grinstead

Comments

[bncthor]

"The Times usually gets it right. This time they dropped the ball."

This could be premature since it will be some time before the issues raised by the Times article are sorted out.