The real reason the McCain story was posted today
Still wondering about that New York Times McCain piece leaving so much of the Vicki Iseman allegations up in the air? Want to know why it was innuendo heavy, and concrete-fact light?
So did Time:
"They did this because the The New Republic was going to run a story that looked back at the infighting there," [McCain Senior aide Mark] Salter said, "the Judy Miller-type power struggles -- they decided that they would rather smear McCain than suffer a story that made the New York Times newsroom look bad."
Since February 4, TNR has been working on a story (published today) about the internal spat at the New York Times that led to the story being killed. Twice. Itâ€™s unclear from the story who won â€“ whether the Times reporters had better anecdotal evidence that was removed to appease the editorial staff who questioned the articleâ€™s use of anecdotal evidence, or if this was the story as it was meant to be. But the Timesâ€™ hand seems to have been forced.
And maybe it should. Itâ€™s well known that the rumors of the shelved piece were so rampant that Drudge reported on it. Less well known is TNRâ€™s new allegations that Marc Santora, the Timesâ€™ McCain campaign reporter, dropped off the campaign trail rather than work underneath the gossip.
Still, if bullying newspapers into running stories is the new thing to do, I would like to get involvedâ€¦ even if I donâ€™t have inside information. So let me be the first to say that the Washington Post has been concealing a story about the â€śclose working relationshipâ€ť between Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and cult-leader Ron Paul. Whatâ€™s the hold up, WaPo?