Quote Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
And you don't think that the Dems would be behind a NY Times smear campaign? McCains people.....WHO? The chumps never named as much as one source. For something like this to even be implied there should be at least one credible witness with a NAME.

Have a good one!:s4:
Here's the link to the original NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us...ewanted=1&_r=1

No where in this thread were there any links to the actual story, just links to stories about the story. So if we are going to discuss the story, we should all read the story.

The named source is John Weaver a former strategist for McCain. He claimed to have warned the lobbyist to keep away from McCain events and to stop claiming to have special access to McCain. Apparently she was claiming to have special access, and this is what concerned the campaign.

There are two other unnamed sources who were former campaign staffers who are now "disillusioned." The NY Times says that they were interviewed independently and their stories corroborate each other and are supported by other independent sources. It's always better to get them on record. but if they won't go on record, the standard of ethics requires independent corroboration, and it looks like they got it.

If you read the whole article, it is not really a smear. There are parts that reflect well on McCain. Opposing points of view are included in the article. McCain was offered interviews, but he and his staff declined. He issued a statement, and it is included in the article. The NYT certainly does have a bias, but it looks like to me they followed ethical journalistic standards with this one.

Quote Originally Posted by thecurious1
It's not like this is breaking news .... this article was in the works for awhile and even McCain admits that he knew about it last year. This isn't exactly something the Dems "leaked" to the news ... it's something the paper had been working on.

And since when do reporters give up their sources? Just doesn't happen. (unless a court orders it) :wtf:
Yes, they have been working on it since October, and McCain new about it, and he was invited to be interviewed on several occaisions. The NYT has been working on it for some time, and they STILL endorsed him, so I don't see it as an ambush or a smear.

On the sources thing: Generally papers try to get sources on the record, and they name them and quote them directly. If a source is "off the record," then they are not named directly, but they may be identified as a "former staff member" or a "source close to the campaign" or some other kind of description that does not name them outright, and they may still be quoted in the article. If a source is only willing to provide "deep background," then they are not identified or quoted in any way, and the information they provide is only used to aid research --- it might lead to other sources who can be quoted, but it cannot be quoted directly. In the case of "off the recourd" or "deep background" sources, then info must be independently corroborated before it can be used ethically. It's the "off the recourd" or "deep background" sources that a paper will refuse to identify, even with a court order, but most stories the source is identified right in the story.