McCain's Lobbyist Friend Sues the New York Times Saying Article Implied Affair

The lobbyist featured in a report on McCain's first run for president 9 years before has sued the New York Times saying a report published early this year implied that the senator had an intimate relationship with the woman.

I remember reading the report, myself and remember they clearly indicated that they had no proof of an affair.

Instead the reporters went over all John McCain's other inapproprriate lobbyist friends.

Funny, but those people and organizations don't seem to be suing.

See Boston Globe  "Saying Times implied McCain affair, lobbyist sues for $27m"  

Excerpt:

A Washington lobbyist sued The New York Times for $27 million yesterday, asserting that an article defamed her by giving the false impression she had an affair with Senator John McCain in 1999. The newspaper stood by the story, saying in a statement that it believes the article was "true and accurate" and that it "raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest."

 Vicki L. Iseman represented telecommunications companies before the Senate Commerce Committee, which McCain chaired. In February the Times reported that McCain aides once worried the relationship between Iseman and McCain had turned romantic. The article said that both McCain and Iseman denied any romantic relationship, but the lawsuit says most readers would find that obligatory.

"That The New York Times would make such aggressive and sensational allegations and insinuations in the face of on-the-record denials by Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain only reinforced the message to readers that The New York Times in fact believed that Ms. Iseman and Senator McCain had indeed engaged in an 'inappropriate relationship,' a relationship that was romantic, unethical, and a conflict of interest," the suit says.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the push to get the Times into the News Corp fold.  Make share holders scared enough maybe they'd be willing dump their stock into Murdoch's lap.

The man has been pushing the idea that he's now a liberal into reports throughout the news media.  The way I heard it is that he was henpecked into acting like a conservative by his first wife.  His new young wife is a 'liberal' and so is he now.  

Yeah, I believe that. /sarcasm

In a few years all our once vaunted biggest news sources could be owned by Sam Zell or Rupert Murdoch.

In the UK the heavy News Corp footprint isn't as bad as it would be in the US because of the BBC (though News Corp is doing what it can to destroy it) as well as a free for all news environment in which the push is more to get out every piece of news that mitigates the pressure from the right.

And while Murdoch isn't Zell, a man who took a decent news organization and made it into a News for Dummies guild headed (just below himself) by Clear Channel alumni, and put the former head of Direct TV in charge of the LA Times, which was concidered a world class news publication before he started taking away it's resources, Rupert's dedication to getting out all the facts, even the ones that are uncomfortable to the right, is shaky.                                                                                                                                    

tags: new york times  iseman  john mccain  lobbyists  lawsuit  

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit