Subscribe to my Feed
« Senator Clinton, knock it off! | Home | Oscar’s apology to Whoopi was truly award-worthy »
Does The New York Times owe Senator McCain an apology? I think so.
By Lauren | February 27, 2008
After reading yesterday’s post in which I questioned some of Senator Clinton’s campaign tactics, a friend took me to task over lunch today for failing to challenge The New York Times’ article insinuating that Senator John McCain might have had a “romantic” relationship several years ago with a female lobbyist. (Two anonymous former McCain aides apparently raised the matter without offering hard evidence to back up their suspicions, but The New York Times ran the story anyway.) My friend thought that I should have commented on the newspaper’s questionable ethics in raising a cloud of suspicion over Senator McCain’s head without the specific, tangible proof to support such an ugly accusation.
What can I say? As I’ve previously mentioned, my goal has been to avoid commenting on the Presidential campaign in this blog because I believe that good ethics are not a partisan matter. Additionally, almost every major media outlet in the country has quite appropriately bashed The New York Times for tarnishing Senator McCain’s reputation in such an oblique and unsupported way. There didn’t seem to be much I could add.
Nevertheless, my friend has a point. There has been an awful lot of real and virtual ink spilled around this story, and The New York Times has been quick to explain why it reported on the aides’ suspicions without concrete proof. Apparently, the editorial staff thought it was essential for readers to understand why Senator McCain’s aides were concerned that his friendship with this particular lobbyist could create an unseemly appearance. Having read the article, I disagree, but that’s not my concern.
What troubles me is that The New York Times has heard from many, many sources that the article was hurtful, tasteless and just plain wrong. Even the paper’s Public Editor and readers’ representative, Clark Hoyt, has observed that “if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.” I would go one step further and say that, if a newspaper chooses to smear the reputation of a respected national leader without providing hard proof to support its insinuations, that newspaper owes the leader in question an unqualified apology. In searching The New York Times Website, I found no proof that such an apology has been made. Until The New York Times apologizes to Senator McCain, its explanation for running this unsubstantiated story is nothing more than a bad excuse.
Topics: Apologies, Business Ethics, business communications |