News: NY Times Hasn't Learned from Dan Rather

"Oh snap."

That's what the editors of the New York Times have been thinking ever since they published a front page story on John McCain's alleged inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist and the interests she represents. (The link worked at first, but while I was writing they decided to make it subscription only...) Within an hour of going to press, McCain's campaign denied the story and everyone realized the column wouldn't pass muster. And now, the conservative base is doing the improbable, namely lining up behind the McCain train. Thank you, New York Times, for not only endorsing John McCain, but also for bestowing him with a most cherished conservative credential: unfounded libel from America's most liberal paper.

Despite political editor Bill Keller's darnedest efforts to defend the timing and allegations and relevance of the story, Times public editor Clark Hoyt felt compelled to submit to the world his doubts about the article. He says, in part:

"A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide."