I am appalled that this story on John McCain is getting so much exposure.  It looks like smears and innuendos to me.

Enjoy your winter and the water it will bring in April :)  Georgia would LOVE to have those problems!

Belgrade ... as the French say, "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" (the more things change, the more they stay the same). Churchill warned about upsetting the Balkans, and here we go again. The more I see these territorial and ethnic issues arise around the planet, the more I am convinced that we should just let the wars happen. Europe took something 800 years to go through this sort of thing before they finally decided it wasn't worth it; I think every society has to reach that conclusion on their own rather than having an outside power impose a "solution" that falls apart over time (e.g., Yugoslavia and Tito).

As for the NYT - the majority of the article focused on McCain's apparent periodic blindness to how some of his actions can "look", and his staff's concern that there was an APPEARANCE of impropriety, not an actual affair. He does indeed have a history of being "tone deaf" about some of his actions, although that seems to be a chronic problem in DC in both parties.

I'm not really convinced that this was an article that had to be reported. I don't see much new there, and it's hard to conclude that the intent of the article was pure journalism. And I'm usually a fan of the NYT.....  IMO, they need to get back to reporting facts and news that matter rather than using questionable material for no apparent news value.
They are, in essence, making the same mistake they allege McCain makes - being blind to the appearance of impropriety. IMNSHO :)

I think the Gov. Of Texas, during an interview on Hannity last night, said it best...."The story about John McCain is yellow journalism at it's best". Brian I think your news department does the best job of the 3 networks of trying to keep the news nonbiased. Although I still see you lean to the left sometimes. I hope you will continue to lead the news programs and give this McCain story the spot it deserves...In the trash can! Try it on the air!

Hi Brian -

So, you'd like to hear what the 'peeps' think about the McCain story in today's New York Times.  

OK - here's my thoughts.

When you decide to go into elective politics in this era of 24/7 media, you'd better be prepared to have your whole life scrutinized - back to pre-school perhaps.  This is why so many people who would otherwise be very qualified choose not to run - either they are very private people or they have something in their past they want to keep private.

Is is right?  Is it fair?  Whose call is it?  

The media is doing their job which is to report the news and to give the public information about the candidate and his/her qualifications.

Sometimes the candidate can head off problems by talking about an issue that could be troublesome and try to head off surprises.  Sometimes family members can cause problems which are/were unexpected.

In any case, among our other freedoms, we have freedom of the press here and it's a good thing.

The McCain story is nothing compared to the coverage of the story in the N.Y.T. received and speculation about the judgement (or lack of) the Times used to publish the story.

The coverage seemed over the top and surreal at times.

It almost like a sitcom watching the MSNBC today while they were interviewing media insiders, political analyst and other characters with speakings parts that they mention that there was an earthquake registering 6.8 in Nevada(they got the pronunciation correct - I think)and went back to the coverage a story that wasn't a story. Or was it? It would have make a good script for a dark comedy.

On an off topic - Who's your pick for Sunday's race? I'd pick someone out of Joe Gibbs Racing.

Regarding the McCain story - how convenient for the Democrats that the story surfaces now....I always wonder if there is something underhanded when a story like this comes out and there's nothing to really substantiate the claim.  The damage is done no matter where the blame lies - I am glad to see he addressed the allegations.

  Brian,
     I am no fan of McCain, but that story appears to be nothing but empty speculation and premature assumptions. He is, however, a frontrunner in a tight political race, and therefore should use greater discretion when publicly conducting himself. Even the appearance of impropriety, as seen here, can attract a ridiculous amount of attention.

  Wonderful broadcast tonight. I especially liked tonight's tie.

                   MJ Stewart

Dear Brian,
I traveled in easten and western europe in eurly 1990th oh, it was the time of calm and happiness of people, one of these days i come up to the central street of moscow city - Tverskaya going in the direction to our Kremlin palace how disturbing and
harshly and bluntly peoples'(!)(especially caucases)is their movement in the center of Russia our homeland like the sunday event of kosovo independence. Last years i have much traveled in Moscow region, a lot of monuments of history are restored but people become poorer than in 1990
and their suffering takes part of the entire life of the sities and provence.

I invite you to take a jurney in Moscow city and
St Peterburg to have a walk in center of Moscow down the Kremlin walls.

Best regards.
What americans vote Obama or McCain its your choice
for the coming years critically conservative or liberally phenomenon great influencing our old continent as an example of democracy.

Good Evening Mr.Williams, First of all Mr.Williams it is raining very hard right now in the State of Georgia and will continue to rain tomorrow. We are supposed to pick up a little over two inches. If you would wish to send the water from the scheduled snowfall down to Georgia you are most welcome. Regarding the New York Time front page article concerning Presidential Candidate John McCain, I question the timing of the article being printed in the paper and all the facts that have been reported. It is unfortunate this happens to a candidate close to a nomination in the party, but when one is running for public office one has to expect these stories to come out. Now on to the broadcast. The report by Mr.Aspell from Belgrade concerning the attack on the US Embassy, it is fortunate there were no serious injuries. Although the one charred body was found which is terrible. Hopefully, there will be no more violence and peace will take over. It is sad for the people who were so happy at the declaration of freedom on Sunday. Again, I hope there are no more riots taking place. On the subject of the direct hit by the missile on the satellite, it is great the military was able to blow it apart in space before it fell to earth and was harmful to people. Much going on in space last evening between the satellite and the lunar eclipse, which by the way was really great to see. I had a wonderful view of the eclipse and it was amazing. Finally, the In Depth report by Anne Thompson about the power of coal and the contribution to global warming exhibited how one side sees money for the city in Nevada and the other side sees more pollutants to the air. The campaign in the town for clean coal appears to be good, but the emissions from coal are still more that solar and wind. Man must still continue to work hard to search for alternative ways to get energy and not harm the environment. Thank you for the broadcast Mr.Williams. Be careful in the snow Friday and Saturday! Peace to all!      

Brian:

I read the story on the web last night and nothing about it jumped out at me. The New York Times has a reputation for quality journalism and John McCain is a public figure whose relationship with a lobbyist is a legitimate subject of inquiry. At this point, I am not ready to pass judgment on the Times. I agree with Jeff from East Tennessee that the cable coverage was over the top. One particular host read aloud the most salacious paragraph over and over again.  

Anytime print media (or any media, for that matter) uses anonymous sources, as a reader or viewer it is reasonable to be suspicious.  That the Times hasn't learned from past mistakes (Jayson Blair scandal, anyone?) and instituted a higher editorial standard for sourcing is quite troubling and calls into question where their ethics lie.

At a time of diminishing readers of newspapers and viewers of nightly newscasts, it would behoove all involved in producing and delivering such products to reexamine their bias and deliver a product that is formed on the highest level of integrity.  (Yes, this includes you, too, Nightly News With Brian Williams, as you continue to deliver a constant stream of global warming alarmist stories without nary an acknowledgement that there other points of view held by credible scientists.)

Should this lesson not be heeded, readers and viewers will continue their exodus and consider your products irrelevant, quaint artifacts of the 20th Century.

I will say the same about John McCain that I said about Bill Clinton and any other politician: their sex lives are none of our business unless they are using that life to put our country at risk.  Is it a big deal?  Maybe, if you expect your politicians to be above the average American lifestyle.  

To me, the larger and more important question is whether he put himself in a place where his decisions and votes could be influenced in a manner rather than his constituency would want him to go.  That's when such a relationship becomes relevant.  This would include a substance abuse addiction, whether it is alcohol, sex, illicit or prescription drugs, gambling, or another other addictions I haven't mentioned.

Isn't this the same New York Times that has made journalistic news before and not for the positive?  I'm feeling a theme here.... feels like CBS, now that I think of it.  Reminds me why I do not watch nor read CBS News anymore.  While we the peeps can hold less than ethical journalists and organizations to task for this, I guess I would direct my question back to you, Brian, as a journalist yourself: what is your response (you or any other journalist out on the beats today) to others who would sully the profession for the sake of a scoop?  I would have to wonder if maybe stuff like this continues to happen because the journalism community doesn't rise up en masse and demand more of its members.  

Did someone say snow?  I won't have a clear path out of my parking lot till June the rate this is going.  I love snow, but its getting weary, and now roofs are caving in all over the state.  In fact, one of my neighbors has a sign on a shovel in a snowbank that says "snow - free for the taking.  You shovel & haul off."  

I think the NYT should be ashamed of itself. This is the stuff of the National Enguirer.

I see Americans feel it's not important to talk about a Republicans personal life or even a affair. We should view McCains record and not deal with any interest he might have or not have had with a younger woman.  Look at other World Leaders such as the President of France who was having an affair while married, then divorced and married his mistress. Republicans have shown us for the pass 7 years that they stand for Christan, Moral and Family values that all Americans should follow. For the pass 7 years we have seen GOP Law Makers as child molesters, perverts and hiring prostitutes as now problem at all.  Now as for that Bill Clinton well it's ok to make him a headliner or any other Democrat who strays from his wife. Democrats don't have the same Christian, morals or Family values that Republicans do.  

Hillary is a strong woman and a great candidate the lost for her as President will be the United States loss. But look we made two mistakes putting George W. Bush in office, now I guess we can go for a record third mistake with Obama or McCain. The only question is how much lower with Obama or McCain take this country before we hit rock bottom.  Al Capone would be proud to see his criminal plans are used by the current Administration.

Good news is Pakistan people stood up for honesty and the new leadership will soon come. To bad the Bush Administration lost their puppet. At lease the Nukes will be in the hands of leaders who don't like the United States.  Maybe the White House can ask Hillary to help as he has alot of respect in Pakistan. That's always how it happens in the US is we don't pick the qualified people but we ask them to help us out when our President doesn't know what to do.

U.S. apologizes for misinformation on rendition flights. Yes the CIA lied yet again nothing new with that fact. How many more lies and apologies are we going to hear. It seems it been 7 years of lies so we will have many more apologies ahead.

A story on the CBS site states:  "The story of McCain and the lobbyist was well known gossip in Washington circles...."  It's rumormongering.  Pure and simple.  Shame on NYT and the New Republic for making it public.  What's their proof?  I haven't seen any proof as yet.  Go McCain!

Funny (in that strange sort of way…)
About that ‘new york times’ story, (yes.. I intentionally did not capitalize.) tell me if I’m wrong, but, I thought,’ News’ reporting was all about the facts, and ‘Journalism’ was all about the opinion.
I am not that sophisticated, I’m sitting at my kitchen table and I just started poking around the internet and happened along this blog. You see, I just got this new lap top computer that does a lot of things. No it does not solve the problem of the poor in the world, and it does not know the correct lotto numbers to pick, but what it does really good apparently, is poke around everywhere and into everything.  It even allows me the ‘privilege’ of typing (ergo, e-mailing) the news/journalist of the moment and giving my opinion. I used to watch my dad throw news papers at the ‘T.V.’ when I was a kid. But I digress…
Journalist (in my Fathers day) would withhold stories that would hurt America, or a candidate, and would not divulge the truth until years later when there  was less of a chance of damage to the individual or the country.
Kennedy anyone…
That was then and here is the now.  News organizations now structure the news to keep themselves in the public eye so their bottom line is helping their investors, and if they can influence elections to satisfy their inner college utopian wanderlust , then…why not, I mean, who’s to stop them, why they have that impenetrable shield called “Freedom of Speech” (and the choir fades).
Diarrhea of the mouth.
Tabloid. Print all the news that is fit to print, and if doesn’t fit, make something up.
Guy’s, guy’s, guy’s (and gals),  is it True?, does it matter?.  I’m 49 years old and all my hero’s are dead.
Nobody votes for  leaders anymore. There are no leaders (that I can see) in either side. There are two camps of thought working here, the ‘Change’ folks, and the ‘don’t break what’s not broke’ folk. They use to call them, Democrats and Republicans.
People will either vote to change something they don’t like, or, they will vote for ‘leave it the hell alone because I’m retired, and want peace and quiet in my golden years’ , they don’t vote for leaders anymore.  People shop for candidates like cars, so what if the seats are a little wet, will it carry me down the road with good mileage, or do I want excitement no matter what the cost!
I’ve watched the news for most of my life, and I only remember the high points or the low points. But, I never forget who tells the truth and who tells the lies…   and, also, who doesn’t have any character to admit they are wrong.
This country and I do not have time to get it wrong and to do a ‘do over’. Its too expensive and it wastes a lot of time…
Where are the leaders…

Isn't NY Times vs. McCain a question of judgment?

I write as a fan and reader of the Times who is, at the moment, quite disappointed with the newspaper and questioning the soundness of its judgment in publishing the piece.

The Times claims to be publishing the story as part of a series called "The Long Run" which examines the life and careers of the 2008 presidential candidates. However, this article was not written in that context. It starts off by suggesting a sex scandal but offers no proof thereby reducing the newspaper to the level of a tabloid. Had the Times been serious about examining Senator McCain's life and career, it would have started with his life and continued by relating the ups and downs of his career. If the paper then wished, it could have included the questionable activities it related in the article as some of the "downs" without suggesting scandal. Why did they suggest scandal? To give the article veracity? In my reading of the piece, they established no right to do so.

At worst the article suggests Sen. McCain is guilty of exercising bad judgment in not recognizing areas of possible impropriety or potential conflict of interest. Weakness in exercising good judgment is important in evaluating a presidential candidate. But did the Times establish a strong enough case to change any minds one way or another? Not in my judgment.

One has to ask why the Times went to print with nothing more than innuendo to support their case. Had they been able to find evidence of Commerce Committee decisions that favored Ms. Iseman's clients, or found a money trail that implicated Mr. McCain--some kind of proof of at least unethical behavior--then the story would have been worthy of the journalistic standards the Times sets for itself: "All the News That's Fit to Print". Perhaps the story was put out as a fishing expedition, and if so, there is some evidence it has worked. It is reported the Washington Post has been able to flesh out its material on the subject because sources have come forward since the Times published its report. So perhaps there is more to come. Still that is a high price to pay considering the hit the Times is taking to its reputation. At the moment, the finger of poor judgment has to be pointed at the Times rather than at Senator McCain and the question asked: why did the Times publish at all absent more substantial evidence?

The entire episode makes a rock-solid case for public campaign financing. When are we going to take the "For Sale" sign down that is hanging over Washington? Poor judgment on our part???

MCCAIN DEBACLE:  I believe Senator McCain when he states such a relationship just isn't true.
As for the TIMES printing that article, well it is
common knowledge that the TIMES is in the fight of its life to remain financially viable.  Ergo such
'spectacularism' would be and seems to be just their cup of tea.  I also wonder just how many
Democrats hold high office within the TIMES corporate structure???  

And for clarity...I am neither a Democrat nor Republican but rather an Independent voter........

I'm not sure if I can absolutely believe the NYT story on John McCain.  Seems like the evidence is abit too weak at the moment.  But aside from that, I just wanted to come by and say that I like the new ending background of Times Sq.!  Makes me feel like I'm almost there!  Thank YOU for the broadcast.. it's TRULY HELPFUL for guys like us living outside of the States to catch up with the news there.  Thanks.

I don't think we've heard the end of the story.  Be patient.  More will come.
My hope, though, is that the rest of the story comes sooner than later.  It would be very problematic for both sides if the rest of the story came out a month before the election.

There are news corporations that strongly think that NBC ran wild with the NY TIMES article, filled with nothing but innuendo, about presidential candidate John McCain. EVERY PERSONALITY on the Today Show is just one example. Keith Olbermann is another. This is another reason NBC is in the tank with The NY TIMES. Profits are down and getting worse.

Hi Brian,  A lot of valid have been expressed above, so I will try not to be too repetitive.  The New York Times has every right to investigate and publish any story they want -- it is their reputation on the line here.  However, it is the job of the other media (NBC News included) to seperately investigate this story, not simply to report on the New York Times story.  The New York Times story is not "The Story" here.  If other news outlets find that there is something behind these claims, than obviously it is worth reporting.  However, if the NYT claims turn out be unsubstantiated, I think it would be best as a passing mention.

Thanks as always for your excellent reporting.

Enjoy the (snowy) weekend.

First, let me say that, as a Marylander, the only reason I buy The New York Times is to work the crossword puzzle.  (I am a Washington Post girl, myself, and - in any case - do not consider The Times to be THE paper of record, as many seem to.)  Now that I have read the article, I would point out that the construction of the article is what struck me most, as opposed to the whole of its contents.  The fact that the authors chose to place the insinuation of an extra-marital affair in the second paragraph belies their agenda, if that is not too strong a term.  Furthermore, any article that contains the words, "...on the condition of anonymity" raises a red flag with me.  It happens all too often in print journalism.  Once one gets into the body of the piece, the focus shifts to the savings and loan scandal, and Charles Keating.  (Of course, one has to jump all the way to page A17 to find that comparatively "boring" material.)  What I basically took away from the story is that the authors would characterize Senator McCain as a war hero who is also an unethical hypocrite, and - possibly - an adulterer.  Now, I have to admit that I had not known of John McCain's role in the so-called Keating Five.  Whilst all that was going on in the late '80s, I was navigating high school and college, and thus cared more about the latest R.E.M. album than I did about what was going on up on Capitol Hill.  But, again, the choice of the article's authors to lead with the suggestion of a sex scandal, rather than with the possibility of a gross conflict of interest just reeks of sleaze.  I, like many voters, could care less about the romantic relationships of our elected officials.  I didn't care about Clinton and Lewinsky; I don't care if Senator Larry Craig from Idaho is gay; and I don't care if John McCain was unfaithful to his wife, and I thinks it's disgusting to even put the suggestion out there.  Hmmm, so, The New York Times likes to promote that they publish, "All the News That's Fit to Print"?  Methinks they should adopt the Rolling Stone motto:  "All the News That Fits"!

Hi Brian,
Watch and enjoy your show....
This is OT, BUT...I am wondering why no one is mentioning this, it seems a very important story to say the least. According to an article in the Star-Telegram out of Dallas, TX dated yesterday, Security details at Barack Obama's rally last Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons more than an hour before he took the stage at Reunion Arena.

Story here:
http://www.star-telegram.com/dallas_news/story/486413.html

Obviously questions need to be answered. On who's authority was that order given? Where screenings stopped at other rallies? Where screenings ever stopped at a Republican rally? I would like to know who exactly, was responsible?

This needs to be addressed!

Thanks,

THE McCAIN STORY IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A LIBERAL NEWS-PAPER. AND THE FACT THAT ALL THE EVENING NEWS ANCHORS BLABBED ON AND ON ABOUT IT, JUST REMINDS ALL HOW BIAS THE MEDIA IS. THANK GOODNESS FOR CONSERVATIVE RADIO

When I first heard it, I knew from the depth of my heart that it was a ploy to get McCain all this national coverage which has boosted his campaign funds

When I first heard it, I knew from the depth of my heart that it was a ploy to get McCain all this national coverage which has boosted his campaign funds

Ours is a system of Lawyers and Lobbiest!  No wonder we are so screwed up!  Let me mention some news items that are too juicy to let go:  Sen. John McCain swore in a legal deposition about his association with the same Paxton that employees Viki I. Their private jet flew him around in the 2002 pre presidential race. And remember the ugly duckling Chelsa Clintion. She showed up on an MSNBC item today. She is a real living doll!  

American News Papers, News programs should be owned by AMERICANS!

John McCain vs The New York Times

At first glance the story seemed to lack the requisite substance and basis to go after McCain. Although, some of the more reliable media sources were saying that they felt the NYT had more content and that the story would continue to evolve.......which it now has....to McCain's discredit.

A McCain deposition, from a contemporary lawsuit, contradicts his and his staffs assertions that he had no contact with Paxson and during Q&A has him admitting to talking by phone to Paxson, prior to writing the letters in question. Now, after initially denying any contact with McCain, Paxson has come out and stated that he and the female lobbyist met with McCain in Washington prior to McCain's contacting of the FCC......all while, McCain was flying in Paxson's corporate jet , getting $20,000 in campaign contributions...and special attention from a rather attractive lobbyist.....hmmmm this is starting to have the aroma of a fish market.  

So, maybe it's wise for all of you New York Times critics to take a step back and allow for little more time to pass and see just how many other threads are going to unravel from McCain's "story".

It's also interesting to note that McCain's first move was to hire Bob Bennett, who stated emphatically that McCain hadn't had any contact with Paxson, no way, none!....But, now that it comes out that Mccain, Paxson and the skirt did meet, Bennett says that it really doesn't matter...talk about Washington "doublespeak"

Last week, as I listened to your report, I was amused to hear you explain how the electric power that allowed most of us to watch your broadcast came from coal.  Not that yours was not a true generalization but, as one of the folk that has elected to disconnect from the electric grid I just want you to be aware that some of us tune in powered by the sun.
This approach is not, in truth, the most economical for today but, it does give me more control over my budget and when energy costs spike for whatever reason I know that I have acted to moderate any impact on my life style.  We also feel good knowing that over time our reduced carbon footprint will make a modest contribution to the well being of the Earth.

Regards,
Earl Paige

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):