For The New York Times, Self Confidence in Journalism Poses Its Own Risk

I've spent the past few hours doing a little research on an article in the New York Times today. I have done some perfunctory research online, listened to a few denials on television and watched some of the talking heads' reaction to the article. In short, John McCain is accused of having a close relationship with a woman 30 years his junior, Vicki Iseman, who just happened to be a lobbyist for Lowell Paxson and Glencairn Ltd., a telecommunications company that later became Cunningham Broadcasting. Of course, John McCain is McCain from The McCain/Feingold Bill which sought to lessen the influence of Lobbyists on legislators and thus, the legislative process. As if that weren't an explosive enough allegation, the article reaches to find a romantic relationship.

Before I begin my criticism of this article, I am not a conservative, I am not a liberal and I am not a moderate. I vote for ideas based on common sense and what I think is good law. I vote as a Constitutional Lawyer and Scholar, and believe that 95% of law passed today is as dumb as Paris Hilton, and just as useless. This article is dumb because it smacks of sensationalism. The alleged "romantic relationship" is thrown in as an afterthought, a "fear" by two unidentified "staffers" who were "inside" the campaign. SHOCKING! Among the hundreds of people close to McCain in the 2000 presidential campaign two of them thought that he might want to fuck a woman 30 years his junior. In case you don't read the papers, or have lived in cave since birth, 60 year old men like 30 year old women because they aren't incontinent and they don't require an orthopedic pillow to get into the missionary position. This theory is gaining acceptance as is that crazy "flat earth postulate" along with the equally unproven thought that we can never land on the moom. I am astounded at the insight of these two "unidentified staffers". Put them on NASA'S payroll immediately, perhaps we can traverse our lunar landscape soon. In short, there is nothing to even remotely suggest a "romantic relationship", but there are other allegations in the article.

The article gives readers a few of Ms. Iseman's clients along with some of the apparent preferential treatment from McCain. One of them was Glencairn Ltd.

I heard alot about Glencairn Ltd. because they owned an Oklahoma City TV station and in 1999 wanted to purchase another one in the same market, which did occur. This little tidbit isn't in the article, but I know about it because I am from this State, and I agreed with it then and still do. The article does give readers the information that in 1998 and 1999, McCain wrote two letters to the FCC to support deregulation of the industry. McCain also supported other positions and legislation analogous with and beneficial to Ms. Iseman's clients. The "reporters" never use the vast resources at their disposal to check if those positions were out of line with other votes or actions he took in his twenty years in Congress. In short, just because some of his positions are the same as Ms. Iseman's does not a "romantic relationship" nor an "improper influence" make. There are plenty of other questions about McCain that come as a result from this article, but they are lost in the sensationalism of today's reporting. And you sure as hell won't find the answers in this article.

There was a glorious time when the press was a tool for democracy by demanding transparency about the things that mattered in our government, by pinning down the position of a candidate, and using investigative journalism to get to the truth. Today's press, as a whole has turned their focus to the sensational, the innuendo and the fairly obvious. That stuff sells newspapers today, but damn I miss the old days.

Stay tuned. Tomorrow we'll discuss cow balls and car bumpers..