NY Times Does Tabloid Article on Cindy McCain

The New York Times has finally shown its complete lack of credibility or judgment. In recent years the Times has endured many scandals (Jayson Blair, Maureen Dowd, Rick Bragg, Daniel Preysman), but has now pressed any semblance of journalism integrity way off the map and into the void. The Times has now become simply a Democratic tabloid rag.

This last article, an expose of sorts, targets the wife of Sen. John McCain. Not the candidate running for President, but his wife. Lawyers for Cindy McCain tried to stop the article from being published, saying that the Times has not used its "investigative assets" on Sen. Obama nor his wife.

"It is worth noting that you have not employed your investigative assets looking into Michelle Obama," Dowd wrote in the letter, which the campaign has made public now in response to the latest report by the Times. "You have not tried to find Barack Obama's drug dealer that he wrote about in his book, 'Dreams of My Father. Nor have you interviewed his poor relatives in Kenya and determined why Barack Obama has not rescued them. Thus there is a terrific lack of balance here."

The Times fired back that they had written about Michelle Obama and that this was indeed fair and balanced reporting. They say that they "reported vigorously on the backgrounds of the candidates and the influential people in their lives . . . " Yet The Times article about Ayers and Obama would have you believe that they were barely acquainted with each other, calling they past meetings as paths that have "crossed sporadically."

How sporadic would that be then? Sitting on a board where they doled out money to charities (including tens of thousand to ACORN)? Not much in itself. People can have no personal contact outside such things. How about as neighbors? I don't know much about my own neighbors. But wait, what about neighbors who sit on the same board? Ahhhh, coincidence, right? But wait even more. How about neighbors, who sit on the same charitable board and who host political coming out events for the other? I think there is enough there to question. I am not saying that there is anything to such issues of poor judgment, just that it deserves some questioning and some serious answers. Yet the NY Times did not even raise the question. And they want us to believe they reported vigorously.

In their "reporting" on Michelle Obama, the Times had this to say:

"Although Mrs. Obama describes her husband as a loving father, she worries about the actual amount of fathering he is doing. Mr. Obama has acknowledged in his book that his absences caused tensions when the girls were younger. And his wife initially resisted his presidential ambitions, fearing the impact on their family life. - NY Times, May 18. 2007"

No mention of her senior thesis paper (in which she stated in her introduction, "These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.") No noting that she has seemed domineering of her husband and his career, pushing him "Just don't screw it up" on his 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention. Nor any mention of how she will jump into a conversation he might have with aides discussing strategy.

I think that comments like "She's meaner than I am" (from Barack) and "Everyone in the family is afraid of her," (her brother) though funny may also reveal a hidden abuser. Not saying that syhe is, just saying that even with all evidence available, the Times didn't even hint at the possibility.

They also made no mention of how she was responsible for 150 Hispanic workers in La Junta, CO losing their jobs at a pickle factory. No mention of the hospital where is a board member doesn't take patients without insurance.

Yet with Cindy McCain, the Times feels qualified to even hint at such things as how she feels and how the couple is in private. They even think they are qualified to report on her motivations and insinuate something about her character at the same time.

"Asked to explain how Mrs. McCain can seem so uncomfortable on the trail and yet so intent on victory, friends say she truly believes that her husband is the best man for the job. Some note she has invested for decades in his career and now sees the ultimate prize in reach; others say she wants approval, from either her husband or the public. - NY Times, Oct. 17, 2008"

The Times report seems to drone on about how much time the McCain's spend apart from each other, as if this defines a bad marriage. Well, ask any truck driver and his/her spouse if time apart defines a bad marriage. It is a difficult one to be sure. But bad? How dare the Times take such a tack. As an over the road truck driver, I used to spend only 51 days a year at home. Even now, as a regional driver, I work nights and my wife works days. We spend as much time together as work and family needs allow. And I know many Americans who have to do this, for careers, for just the simple fact of it's what the job requires and what the bills demand. Dos this make every American who has to go through this in a bad marriage? Now that is such a ridiculous question as to not really warrant a response.

The report even makes an issue of how the McCain's are in private. Now let me ask you, how in the hell do they know what a husband and wife are like in private? They quote a former aide, Wes Gullet as saying "When he was home, the two were "as affectionate as you can be with John McCain," said Wes Gullet, a former aide, explaining that his old boss, with his military training, restless energy and sarcastic humor, is not the cuddly type. "He's a funny and vivacious guy, but he is not someone who spends his weekend watching 'The Way We Were,' " Mr. Gullet said." But is he there during their most private moments? Did the Times dare ask the McCains to discuss their intimate moments?

Cindy McCain is a reserved woman whenit comes to the public and politics, especially given her frozen welcome when John first went to Washington. And John is a military man from a family with generations in the military. Not everyone is comfortable or even prone to showing cuddly emotions in public. PDA's (public displays of affection) are even discouraged by many Americans. I once had a bunch of actor friends that would groan and do the pretend barf thing when a couple in our group were openly affectionate while we were out having a snack after rehearsals.

I guess the folks at the times are just looking for any way possible to make the American public look on John McCain as not the man for the job. But this time I think they not only went over the line at painting this very accomplished woman as a distant, unloving, money grubbing, fame and power seeking opportunist, but they border on libelous at times. My God, they even went so far as to complain that she never went into Rwanda but opnly to the border. She went to the border on a mercy mission. How many times has Michelle Obma gone to the aide of defenseless women and children around the world to provide medical supplies? How many third world countries has she visited, spending time in refugee camps and near war zones?

This was a tabloid hit piece that only deserves to be lining a bird cage. It also deserves a cancellation fo every subscription by decent minded Americans who would send a message to this disgusting rag that no longer has any crediblity in my mind as a professional journalistic endeavour. I for one will never pick up another edition of the NY Times.

Sources:

FOXNews.com Elections - McCain Camp FIres Back. . .

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/18/mccain-camp-fires-ny-times-story/

Princeton Eductaed Blacks and the Black Community

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2305083/PrincetonEducated-Blacks-and-the-Black-Community