Grey Lady, Grey Hair: Are Lobbyists Ever Attractive?

Perhaps the most interesting part of the Times' counterlede yesterday about Sen. John McCain's (romantic) relationship with a telcom lobbyist is the paper had it ready in mid-December, but decided to hold it until this week.

Politico reports, "The Times only went with the story now because The New Republic was set to run a piece next Monday about internal dissensions at the paper over whether to run the long-held article." But then, that's attributed to Charlie Black, one of McCain's top advisors and a premier lobbyist, so I don't trust his assertion.

I find the New Republic's story elucidating because, amidst all its thorough details (there's barely anything like the TNR that brings you inside in powerful circles), there's no explanation about what changed from the story's first draft to its final one to compel Bill Keller and the Times' other top editors to go ahead with publication. There's no suggestion that there was one new chunk of details (purposefully not using "facts" because of how some of the story is sourced) that made everyone feel comfortable this was solid, worthy reporting.

Overall, I think the story is worthy. It would've been more worthy if the Times' reporters left out the romantic implications between McCain, the soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, and just used their close professional relationship as a window to McCain's historically sticky relationship with ethics, which, the Times notes, has continued to a much more moderate degree even since he decided to turn himself into an ethical saint. As Dan Kennedy, the Boston-area reporter and journalism professor, points out at his blog, the Washington Post's story did just that. Though the story seems like it was written quickly so the paper had something on yesterday's front to counter the Times, the story is better-sourced: Notice how the Post usually refers to multiple sources for attribution and the Times does not. (What I learned is, if you can write "according to three sources" you're good, and the Post has at least that at a few points.) It's really not a controversial story if you eliminate the suggestion of romance -- only damning. And McCain knew it was if he hired Bill Clinton's Monicagate lawyer, Bob Bennett, to try and kill it, and wouldn't talk to any of the Times' reporters on the record, but went around them to complain to Keller.

But now, the Times is making news for the wrong reason -- blowback instead of blow-up. They even trotted out Keller and others for a new edition of the "Talk to the Newsroom" series to explain how it all happened. (Though when you have Keller answering, it all has a corporate sheen to it, as much as I love the guy.) As evidence of how long the story was held, one of its reporters, Marilyn W. Thompson, left the Times to re-join the Post while it sat in limbo. Even worse, the story lets conservatives make the argument the Times only loves to go after Republicans, which any review of its stories would point out isn't true. Why doesn't the general public understand the divide between the news and editorial pages? As one small-time reporter's opinion, I enjoy going after Democrats as much as Republicans.

But really, in summation: Who would ever want to be a lobbyist? How do you take pride in yourself? At cocktail parties, when asked "What do you do?" what do you say? That this profession ranges from Iseman to Abramoff to former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (who's paid handsomely by Turkey, of all clients) says a lot about the state of U.S. politics.