According to Next Steps on McCain Story: Repeating What You Don't Report on Poynter.org, writer Kelly McBride reports on the issue of how The New York Times wrote For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk. It appears she almost criticizes the information involved with the story and how that paper practically accuses McCain of adultery and less-than-adherence to his personal ethics.
McBride ends her story stating, "The rest of the journalism world bears responsibility for minimizing or magnifying that distortion."
The distortion she refers to is the fact that the story begins and ends with idea that McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman were "close" eight years ago. Other examples of his ethics were given, but adultery is what the reader will be left with.
The New York Times should have gone a different route in examining his moral code. Beginning and ending the story with the relationship between him and Iseman would obviously leave the reader with the impression that adultery occurred although both denied a romantic relationship. How many times have you heard that one before? But that's not the point.
The point is the "distortion" McBride writes about. I read the story, and all I could think about was, "Wow! How many times have I heard a politician denying any sexual relations (Bill Clinton anyone?) and it's proved true."
Was the story truly about McCain's ethical judgment or more about a supposedly close relationship? With the campaign increasing becoming intense, it was not necessary for The Times to release information about him and Iseman. They needed to focus on one issue or the other, or subtly write about the contact between the two. Sadly enough, I found the article extremely well written, but felt it sent a different message than it intended to. Maybe the writer wanted to evaluate McCain's past ethical actions, but the reader is left with a different image and forgets the rest of the story. Or maybe that image is really what The New York Times aimed for.
No comments:
Post a Comment