I have been impressed at the nearly unanimous honesty here at TNR from posters whom I know to be liberal to Left, who have condemned the NYT for this story on many grounds from stupid, to dishonest, to so what?

I used to very much admire Keller's columns.  He is an intelligent man and an excellent writer.  But, since he became editor, he has proven to have enormously poor judgement.

I don't know if he is weak and being pressured by the publisher or sucking up to his own employees.  Or, if he is simply wrongheaded and dumber than I thought.

But, whatever his personal politics, he is undermining ever further the credibility and authority of the NYT.  You can only be so partisan before you lose your status as the "paper of record".

What paper of record? That's a commercial myth of zero value. This is the paper that didn't manage to see the Holocaust. And I say this as  a liberal.

What scandal?

It's almost as if the Times has this Brtiish balance of power policy:  attack the front runner.  If it were Romney they'd come up with a smear for him.  I'm waiting for an Obama smear.  If it's not out there, then conjure one up.  I don't think it's partisan, just media bastards being media bastards.

I would say that the excerpt I read from Hoyt is correct. Don't print what you can't prove - and don't use innuendo. End of discussion,

The Times is a great paper However, I will not accept this garbage. This mistake is the equivalent of one's own children misbehaving in public. You are moritifed, and you feel a great need to sit them down and say "What exactly were you thinking?"

sleepyavl, I think you're wrong to say that "paper of record" has zero value including zero commercial value.

It doesn't mean you are a newspaper without opinions or a strong political slant.  But, it means you can be trusted to be fair, honest, and on your news pages trustworthy.

Call it a conceit if you will, but the perception of being the "paper of record" helped give the NYT enormous prestige and made it paid attention to even by its opponents.

CBS and the other network news orgs enjoyed something similar at their heights, which translated also in large audiences and large ad revenues.

Now, network news, not only because of cable and the WEb and changing tv habits, but because of its obvious biases has lost all its previous cachet.  And audiences with it.

CBS because of Dan Rather was the most egregious.  And it's deepest in the toilet of all of them.

Of course, hiring Kaite Couric was a dumb call.  By the for offering and her for accepting.

ChanRobt, I don't dispute they and others think they are the paper of record - the definition of which you accurately put here. I also know it sells well. All I am saying that it is not reliable and that much of it is Soviet-style propaganda. They talk about the facts that suit them and ignore others. That's on a good day. On a bad day, they make up stuff from nothing - like now with McCain.

And I say this as a staunch liberal. However, being a committed liberal doesn't mean you have to like lying bastards just because they're liberals.

I think the problem is the publisher.  The Times was always a "progressive" paper, but the latest Sulzberger wants his paper positioned to the left of everybody, and, by golly, he has a staff that gives him what he wants.  Just consider their work on the Duke lacrosse matter when you wonder about the McCain coverage.  The old gray lady is now running a bordello.

Weaver is a pretty good source - how much closer to McCain do you need to get?  The guy said they worked hard to get McCain away from this woman - they thought there was a "romantic" angle.  If his closest staff had that impression, I think the story is worth telling.  After all, this woman represented people with matters before McCain's committee.

Neil

"The Times was always a "progressive" paper, but the latest Sulzberger wants his paper positioned to the left of everybody,"

I'm all for trashing the Times, but the idea that its some kind of radical left paper is ridiculous.  You could describe its slant as more left than right in terms of things like the Duke lacrosse incident, or gun control or social issues, etc, but when it comes to politics, no serious paper "of record" has done more to unfairly trash and ridicule Democrats (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton) than the Times.  

I don't see any bias here, just an incredibly bad news judgment. Keller seemed to present the story as being McCain's advisors' warnings about the man's chumminess with the lobbyist. That's fodder for a water cooler conversation, not an investigative story. Certainly not an above-the-fold "bombshell", as TNR breathlessly announced when it broke.

A rookie mistake. Very weird, esp given that the industry and the issues in question are none other than those that Pinch S. and TimesCo deal with every day as an owner of media properties in oligarchic local markets.