Jump to content

NY Slimes at it again.


Guest Patriot
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Patriot

That leftist rag, the NY Slimes has a front page article today suggesting McCain had an affair with

a lobbyist some years ago. The article names no source for the information, no facts to support

the allegation, just an outright lie intended to harm the man. This one-time prestigious newspaper

has fallen so far that it now ranks with the likes of The Star and The Enquirer. McCain may sue them

for an apology and retraction. The bigger story here is the NY Slimes has been hijacked by the far

left and it's being driven into bankruptcy by these loons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Twizzler
That leftist rag, the NY Slimes has a front page article today suggesting McCain had an affair with

a lobbyist some years ago. The article names no source for the information, no facts to support

the allegation, just an outright lie intended to harm the man. This one-time prestigious newspaper

has fallen so far that it now ranks with the likes of The Star and The Enquirer. McCain may sue them

for an apology and retraction. The bigger story here is the NY Slimes has been hijacked by the far

left and it's being driven into bankruptcy by these loons.

Did you read the article?

On what basis do you claim that it contains "an outright lie?"

What does the piece actually say?

The article says that people who were close to McCain warned this woman to stay away from him. They were concerned about the appearance of their being together so often, and they thought the relationship had become romantic. So they steered her away from him to protect him from himself. That's what the Times reporters were told, so that's what good journalism demands they write. What's the problem, other than the fact that it may hurt the guy you've decided is the next messiah?

Fascinating how loudly right wing pigs can squeal when mud gets on one of their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That leftist rag, the NY Slimes has a front page article today suggesting McCain had an affair with

a lobbyist some years ago. The article names no source for the information, no facts to support

the allegation, just an outright lie intended to harm the man. This one-time prestigious newspaper

has fallen so far that it now ranks with the likes of The Star and The Enquirer. McCain may sue them

for an apology and retraction. The bigger story here is the NY Slimes has been hijacked by the far

left and it's being driven into bankruptcy by these loons.

Well if it was good enough for Bubba...........

It s**ks when people go after thier personal lives doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Educator
Well if it was good enough for Bubba...........

It s**ks when people go after thier personal lives doesn't it?

Bubba ?? I assume you're referring to Bill Clinton, who as Governor was accused of rape , who as president sodomized an intern in the White House, who lied under oath before Congress and the world

and spoke those famous words "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" ?? He was the last

democrat elected president, Obama has a big democratic legacy to follow if elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read the article?

On what basis do you claim that it contains "an outright lie?"

What does the piece actually say?

The article says that people who were close to McCain warned this woman to stay away from him. They were concerned about the appearance of their being together so often, and they thought the relationship had become romantic. So they steered her away from him to protect him from himself. That's what the Times reporters were told, so that's what good journalism demands they write. What's the problem, other than the fact that it may hurt the guy you've decided is the next messiah?

Fascinating how loudly right wing pigs can squeal when mud gets on one of their own.

You make a point about the content of the story. There's not much to deny because the allegations are so thin to begin with. The fascinating thing is that a paper with the supposed reputation of the NYT would publish thin allegations like this from anonymous sources.

On the front page.

The NYT is probably going to be forced into an apology. Expect it to contain plenty of defensiveness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Truth Squad
Bubba ?? I assume you're referring to Bill Clinton, who as Governor was accused of rape , who as president sodomized an intern in the White House, who lied under oath before Congress and the world

and spoke those famous words "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" ?? He was the last

democrat elected president, Obama has a big democratic legacy to follow if elected.

Uh-huh. . .

What a cheap, idiotic shot at Obama.

And then you wonder why people don't mind seeing a Republican take it in the neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Truth Squad
You make a point about the content of the story. There's not much to deny because the allegations are so thin to begin with. The fascinating thing is that a paper with the supposed reputation of the NYT would publish thin allegations like this from anonymous sources.

On the front page.

The NYT is probably going to be forced into an apology. Expect it to contain plenty of defensiveness.

Apologize for what? They reported what their sources told them. The sources had first-hand knowledge because they were McCain's aides.

You're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you want to argue that the allegations don't amount to anything; on the other hand, you want to argue that they're so awful they shouldn't have been published. It's not the Times' fault that the other involved person was a young-ish blond woman. Maybe the right wing will finally learn a lesson about the vagaries and illogic of superficial perceptions.

And now we can add journalism to the long lists of subjects you don't understand, along with science and the law. What page they publish it on is entirely up to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bubba ?? I assume you're referring to Bill Clinton, who as Governor was accused of rape , who as president sodomized an intern in the White House, who lied under oath before Congress and the world

and spoke those famous words "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" ?? He was the last

democrat elected president, Obama has a big democratic legacy to follow if elected.

An accusation of rape is far from a conviction and may have been the result of a broken heart or just plain old sour grapes. Sounds a lot like the article about McCain doesn't it? Sodomized? That's an overly dramatic term for two consenting adults don't you think? Bubba liked blow jobs and GW liked blow and got a DUI yet you would have us belive that GW is some kinda moral poster boy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Studies and Observations
Uh-huh. . .

What a cheap, idiotic shot at Obama.

And then you wonder why people don't mind seeing a Republican take it in the neck.

How was that a shot at Obama???

The Lie in the story was in the Omission..What they FAILED to print were the numerous bills that McCain voted Against or for that were in ourtight opposition to the couses and organizations the lady worked for, clear proof that friendship or not, he didnt indulge in the patronage game. I have my issues with John mcCain over some of his positions and votes but this was no more than a REALLY base attempt at a smear by the NYT..and just another indication of why their readership is falling off so drastically. Opinion and partisan politics belong in the editorials section, NOT on the front page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologize for what? They reported what their sources told them.

No they didn't, actually. They reported what two anonymous sources told them while omitting what other figures told them in direct contradiction (like Weaver).

The sources had first-hand knowledge because they were McCain's aides.

If you believe the Times, anyway. The sources are anonymous, so there's no way you're going to verify the report, is there?

You're trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you want to argue that the allegations don't amount to anything; on the other hand, you want to argue that they're so awful they shouldn't have been published.

Incorrect, Truth Fairy. The allegations don't amount to anything, and they shouldn't have been published (especially on the front page) because they don't amount to anything and because they were anonymously sourced. The mere fact that the story is published on the front page gives it the impression of importance. That's what page 1 is all about. By reporting this nothing as though it is something, the NYT effectively engages in gossip instead of news reporting. There's no news in this story. It's innuendo, and that is why it should not have been published (that's one way, not two ways).

It's not the Times' fault that the other involved person was a young-ish blond woman.

"Involved" in what?

You could make the same argument about any number of cheesy National Enquirer scandal stories.

Maybe the right wing will finally learn a lesson about the vagaries and illogic of superficial perceptions.

Answer my preceding question and we'll be able to tell if you've learned the lesson.

And now we can add journalism to the long lists of subjects you don't understand, along with science and the law. What page they publish it on is entirely up to them.

No question about that. The fact that they think it's important news that anonymous and disgruntled McCain staffers allege against the reports of one named witness (Weaver) that McCain might be thinking of having a romantic relationship with a woman-not-his-wife years ago says a great deal about the editorial board of the New York Times.

My local paper (a major daily), for what it's worth, has a longstanding policy that it will not publish stories based on anonymous reports. Not that they know anything about journalism. :lol:

As usual, you have no evidence to support your suggestion that I don't know about journalism. Your one point seems to have been that I supposedly don't think that the editors can publish stories on whatever page they choose. That's manifestly false, so you argued a straw man fallacy. What else you got, TF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they didn't, actually. They reported what two anonymous sources told them while omitting what other figures told them in direct contradiction (like Weaver).

If you believe the Times, anyway. The sources are anonymous, so there's no way you're going to verify the report, is there?

Incorrect, Truth Fairy. The allegations don't amount to anything, and they shouldn't have been published (especially on the front page) because they don't amount to anything and because they were anonymously sourced. The mere fact that the story is published on the front page gives it the impression of importance. That's what page 1 is all about. By reporting this nothing as though it is something, the NYT effective engages in gossip instead of news reporting. There's no news in this story. It's innuendo, and that is why it should not have been published (that's one way, not two ways).

"Involved" in what?

You could make the same argument about any number of cheesy National Enquirer scandal stories.

Answer my preceding question and we'll be able to tell if you've learned the lesson.

No question about that. The fact that they think it's important news that anonymous and disgruntled McCain staffers allege against the reports of one named witness (Weaver) that McCain might be thinking of having a romantic relationship with a woman-not-his-wife years ago says a great deal about the editorial board of the New York Times.

My local paper (a major daily), for what it's worth, has a longstanding policy that it will not publish stories based on anonymous reports. Not that they know anything about journalism. :lol:

As usual, you have no evidence to support your suggestion that I don't know about journalism. Your one point seems to have been that I supposedly don't think that the editors can publish stories on whatever page they choose. That's manifestly false, so you argued a straw man fallacy. What else you got, TF?

Hey Bryan! When you gonna join the military?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Educator
How was that a shot at Obama???

The Lie in the story was in the Omission..What they FAILED to print were the numerous bills that McCain voted Against or for that were in ourtight opposition to the couses and organizations the lady worked for, clear proof that friendship or not, he didnt indulge in the patronage game. I have my issues with John mcCain over some of his positions and votes but this was no more than a REALLY base attempt at a smear by the NYT..and just another indication of why their readership is falling off so drastically. Opinion and partisan politics belong in the editorials section, NOT on the front page.

This leftist rag is already losing readership at a record clip. This may be the shot to sink that

garbage scow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of going off topic (in Keith's eyes, anyway) ...

Q. Why did The New York Times not follow its own most-recently publicized rule on sourcing in its stories? As I understand the policy is that The New York Times will only use unidentified sources as a last resource and if it needs to do so it will at least give a reason why these sources have to remain anonymous. This article in The New York Times did neither. Why?

— Guillermo Martinez, Miami

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1003714400

Follow the link to see editor Jill Abramson's response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Educator

The Slimes article appears to have united the Republican Party around McCain, he took in record amounts

of donation on-line yesterday. When McCain wins the election in Nov. I'll send the Slimes a thank-you note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the risk of going off topic (in Keith's eyes, anyway) ...

Q. Why did The New York Times not follow its own most-recently publicized rule on sourcing in its stories? As I understand the policy is that The New York Times will only use unidentified sources as a last resource and if it needs to do so it will at least give a reason why these sources have to remain anonymous. This article in The New York Times did neither. Why?

— Guillermo Martinez, Miami

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1003714400

Follow the link to see editor Jill Abramson's response.

Concering you Bryan, your joining the military to fight in this war that you praise will always be my topic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Slimes article appears to have united the Republican Party around McCain, he took in record amounts

of donation on-line yesterday.

I don't believe it's anywhere near Obama's numbers regardless. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Concering you Bryan, your joining the military to fight in this war that you praise will always be my topic!

Keith, your fatuous comments on the military tell me you secretly wish you could measure up to

military standards. My guess is you're an overweight geek who fantasizes over wearing a uniform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith, your fatuous comments on the military tell me you secretly wish you could measure up to

military standards. My guess is you're an overweight geek who fantasizes over wearing a uniform.

Your guess, like everything else would be wrong. I will tell that I am 45 yrs old and have already done my hitch in the service.

Now what have you got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Keith, your fatuous comments on the military tell me you secretly wish you could measure up to

military standards. My guess is you're an overweight geek who fantasizes over wearing a uniform.

That's funny, most of us think the same thing about you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Truth Squad
At the risk of going off topic (in Keith's eyes, anyway) ...

Q. Why did The New York Times not follow its own most-recently publicized rule on sourcing in its stories? As I understand the policy is that The New York Times will only use unidentified sources as a last resource and if it needs to do so it will at least give a reason why these sources have to remain anonymous. This article in The New York Times did neither. Why?

— Guillermo Martinez, Miami

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1003714400

Follow the link to see editor Jill Abramson's response.

Oh come on, that's ridiculous. They were former staffers who insisted on anonymity. There isn't a responsible newspaper in the world that wouldn't use the information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest True Patriot
Keith, your fatuous comments

Just shut up, punk. You never, ever have anything of value to say. Mature adults don't care for your stupid one-liners and projected fantasies. No one cares. No one. The only person you find agreeing with you is your alter-ego and Mr. Sentient Rocks. This is not a coincidence. Make something of your miserable life.

True patriots are disgusted by you. You probably never even served.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe it's anywhere near Obama's numbers regardless. :)

Well, that shouldn't matter in the long run since McCain and Obama made a mutual pact last year to accept public financing of their campaigns if they gained their parties' nominations.

WASHINGTON, March 1 — Senator John McCain joined Senator Barack Obama on Thursday in promising to accept a novel fund-raising truce if each man wins his party’s presidential nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html

Some think that Obama might back out of the agreement because of his very successful fundraising.

Obama attempted to address those concerns with a recent op-ed:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Truth Squad

The right wing thinks it has won this battle because the Whine Brigade and the Dittoheads came out for McCain after his relationship with blond bombshell Vicki Iseman, lobbying for Glencairn, Ltd., was outed. Get used to those names because the Times has the goods on John (call me "Hypocrite") McCain.

In today's Times, reporter Stephen Labaton writes that in 1998 the FCC "was planning to strike down broadcasting marketing agreements, a potentially ruinous development for Glencairn. But after receiving Mr. McCain's Dec. 1 letter, it put off consideration of the issue." The article goes on to say that McCain's letter to the FCC "was uncharacteristic of Mr. McCain, according to a review of dozens of letters sent by him to the commission during the same period." Gee, why would McCain's letter be different on this one issue from all his other letters? Hmmm . . .

Oh, what fun this is going to be. Those letters are all matters of public record. John (call me "Mr. Hypocrite") McCain is going to be scrutinized. Mr. Squeaky Clean isn't so squeaky clean.

Oh, and did I mention that there's a blond woman involved, more than twenty years younger than McCain, who was seen in his company quite a lot? It doesn't matter whether they had sex. His own staff thought the relationship was becoming romantic. His own staff thought they had to protect him from his own behavior. That's relevant to his candidacy.

The Times' article concludes: "The Washington Post reported Friday on its Web site that Mr. Paxson acknowledged in an interview that he had met with Mr. McCain to discuss the letters before they were sent and that Ms. Iseman was probably at the meeting.

"In three interviews with the Times since December, Mr. Paxson has provided varying accounts about the letters. In the first, he said Ms. Iseman was involved in the drafting of them and had lobbied Mr. McCain. He later said he could not recall who had been involved."

Gee, so what do we have? Convenient memory losses about the woman who supposedly has no relevance to Mr. McCain. Now why would anyone want to change their story about her? Oh, and the Washington Post - wasn't that the paper Bryan said was better than the Times?

This time the radical right has made a big mistake. They didn't respect one of the finest, perhaps the finest newspaper in the world. They made accusations against the newspaper and its reporters and editors without checking their facts, the very thing they accuse the Times of doing.

It's a long time until November, so there's plenty of time to explore this scandal, and that's exactly what it's going to be. You righties wanna play? Let's play. I'm willing to bet the Times has the goods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Truth Squad

Today's Washington Post reports that John McCain wrote a letter to the FCC in November of 1999, stating that he expected the commissioners "to advise me in writing no later than the close of business Tuesday, December 14, 1999" of what it intended to do about the Paxson deal. In response, FCC Chairman William E. Kennard wrote back, noting that McCain's letter "comes at a sensitive time in the deliberative process" on the issue. Former Commissioner Gloria Tristani puts it more bluntly, stating that the communication was offensive: "It's just not proper. It's like going to a court and saying 'Tell us before it is final how you voted.'"

How improper was McCain's involvement? What effect did his sexual attraction to Iseman have?

We'll find out, won't we? Oh, what fun this is going to be!

Oh, by the way, righties, are we having fun yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Truth Fairy needs a little help whittling down his post to its proper length:

I'm willing to bet the Times has the goods.

The Boston Globe (same ownership as the Times) and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer weren't willing to make that bet.

The Globe went with a more balanced and credible Washington Post story on the subject instead of the Gray Lady's version.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...armed_advisers/

I chose not to run the New York Times story on John McCain in Thursday's P-I, even though it was available to us on the New York Times News Service. I thought I'd take a shot at explaining why.

To me, the story had serious flaws. It did not convincingly make the case that McCain either had an affair with a lobbyist, or was improperly influenced by her. It used a raft of unnamed sources to assert that members of McCain's campaign staff -- not this campaign but his campaign eight years ago -- were concerned about the amount of time McCain was spending with the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. They were worried about the appearance of a close bond between the two of them.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/thebigb...ives/132415.asp

If there were more to the story then the Times probably would have gotten more than it got in three months.

There's no "there" there. But I guess some of you leftists will prefer the audacity of hoping otherwise. :)

I'll take the bet with the Truth Fairy. If I win, the Truth Fairy has to stop using sock puppets at KOTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...