As if the New York Times hasn’t had enough troubles of late – from Jayson Blair to a stock plummeting to such a degree they are said to be trying to sell their landmark office building – now comes lobbyist Vicki Iseman suing the paper over their article implying she had an affair with John McCain. Who could forget that story, since it made its splash right at the height of the Arizona Senator’s presidential campaign, for a moment threatening to derail it?
I remember quite well what I thought at the time. I was supporting McCain, but I immediately feared the story was true, not because of anything specific to the candidate but because we all know that politicians often have testosterone issues. They’re a randy bunch. So I also recall being relieved when I read the actual February 21, 2008 article itself and found the evidence thin. People were dumping on the Times for reporting a half story with no substantiation. Still, in my heart-of-hearts, the affair/relationship or whatever it was remained possible. The Times had done its job to some degree, raising suspicions, not just for me but for many others.
Now, out of nowhere, Iseman is suing the Times for 27 million, claiming defamation. Iseman’s lawyers write in their complaint: “The defamatory statements, expressed and implied, that Ms. Iseman had a romantic relationship with Senator McCain, are entirely false.” That’s pretty unequivocal, but as we know, defamation is difficult to prove in the US where the laws, unlike in the UK, are tilted in favor of the media. Still, Iseman sued, knowing as she surely must that her private life is now going to be exposed beyond her wildest dreams. Under those circumstances, it’s reasonable to assume she has confidence the facts vindicate her.
I have no direct knowledge of the case or of Iseman, but if I were the Times, I would be afraid. I would be very afraid. They have a lot more to lose than the 27 million bucks in the suit. Their reputation is already tarnished and their bottom line diminishing. If Iseman can prove her case to the public’s satisfaction, it will constitute yet more bruising and a serious humiliation for the sometime “newspaper of record”. Those who have been accusing them of being nothing more than a scandal sheet – and a biased one at that, unlike the National Enquirer – will be vindicated. Indeed, if Ms. Iseman wins her case, the Times’ editors and publisher will be revealed to have been simultaneously boneheaded and despicable – an ugly combination indeed.
PS: Of course the Times could settle with Iseman (assuming she would cooperate) but in this instance that would be tantamount to an admission of guilt on the paper’s part.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
71 Comments
1. TexasDude:What’s the New York Times?
Dec 30, 2008 - 11:58 pm 2. Steve K:Feh. It’s not enough for her to prove the story false; she also has to prove that the Times *knew* it was false.
Besides, anyone who, at this point, still thinks the Times has any credibility is beyond enlightenment. It really saddens me to say this as the Times was my favorite paper for most of my adult life. I can remember when that masthead really meant something.
Dec 31, 2008 - 12:19 am 3. Mareyel:It couldn’t happen to a better paper…except perhaps the LA Slimes. The Old Grey Lady is getting what she deserves…a long slow slide into oblivion.
Dec 31, 2008 - 5:05 am 4. hermie:I’m certain that Pinch is expecting a nice-sized government bailout to pay for this and all other future lawsuits.
Dec 31, 2008 - 5:50 am 5. Rob:Yes, if they settle, with libel cases being so difficult to win in this country, they lose. If she wins on being a private (as opposed to public) figure, she stands a very good chance of winning. I’d love to see the Times reporters on the stand trying to justify their reporting…
Dec 31, 2008 - 6:25 am 6. JVD:Actually, an interesting free speech point is lurking here. The NYT says that it’s story was NOT that an affair was occurring; the story was that rumors of an affair were circulating, and that McCain staffers were worried. So, if indeed rumors were circulating, and if indeed staffers were worried, then its story was in fact true.
Much as I dislike the NYT — and I quit reading it over a decade ago — it has a point. Granted, the point would be stronger if the story had said “these rumors are circulating, but the parties deny them and no one has produced evidence.”
Dec 31, 2008 - 6:27 am 7. Jeremy W:I recall reading this New York Times publication a few times, many years ago.
Is it still in circulation?
Dec 31, 2008 - 6:28 am 8. jedrury:The legal test is “knowing falsity or conscious disregard for the truth,” as I recall. The discovery and examination of the reporters and editors will be extensive and “tweaky bum” time for the paper.
One of the Bush Administration failures was not going after James Risen and the Times for publication of the leak of the international interception of telephone calls. The image of the Times is so scary that the administration blinked.
Then again, who would have thought that Judith Miller would have spent time in DC Jail.
Dec 31, 2008 - 7:03 am 9. cfbleachers:The “paper of rancor” has less of a moral code than does organized crime or a den of thieves.
In organized crime circles, you keep the women and children off limits. In a den of thieves, your efforts are guided by profit. In the case of the the “paper of rancor”, there no longer exists a moral line they will not blur.
Documents and evidence that could materially harm the safety and security of the country? No matter.
Outright shilling for one political party? Not even a moment’s hesitation.
Propping up enemies of state, give aid and comfort to them, demonizing our intentions vs. theirs? De riguer.
Hit pieces against not just conservative or Republican candidates, but their wives, children…and now, innocent bystanders merely associated with them? Welcome to the new morality. An ethics so perverse, in full slave mode to a leftist “message” that apparently, is so weak…it cannot stand on its own measure, but rather, must be assisted through fraud, conspiracy, forgery, fakery and slander.
Dec 31, 2008 - 7:04 am 10. Chump Bloven:I like the funnies
Dec 31, 2008 - 7:11 am 11. Harpy White Bitch Sues New York Times | Political Byline:[...] Roger L. Simon says this could spell trouble: I have no direct knowledge of the case or of Iseman, but if I were the Times, I would be afraid. I would be very afraid. They have a lot more to lose than the 27 million bucks in the suit. Their reputation is already tarnished and their bottom line diminishing. If Iseman can prove her case to the public’s satisfaction, it will constitute yet more bruising and a serious humiliation for the sometime “newspaper
Dec 31, 2008 - 7:19 am 12. Charlie (Colorado):Oh, they’ll use the public figure defense. After all, gossip about her has been all over the New York Times.
Dec 31, 2008 - 7:23 am 13. tim maguire:jedrury, that’s the legal test for a public figure. A standard that works out to an almost complete bar against defamation suits.
That’s why, as others here have pointed out, the public figure/private figure battle will be the important one–if she wins that, the Times is in trouble; if she loses, they skate.
Dec 31, 2008 - 8:26 am 14. Colette:Who ever heard of Vicki Iseman until the NY Times piece? Certainly not most readers of the newspaper. As the complaint itself states, even the NY Times never mentioned her in its initial reporting 9 years ago about the legislative issue she was then lobbying McCain about. She was not a public figure, not worth a name mention. What’s the difference between then and now? Only the NY Times decision to print her name. So that makes her a public figure? Seems to me she has an excellent case on the public figure standard.
Dec 31, 2008 - 9:05 am 15. Bugs:I have a feeling “freedom of speech” will, as usual, be judged more important than the mere lives and reputations of innocent citizens.
Dec 31, 2008 - 9:58 am 16. Jack Olson:If scientists discovered that the moon really is made of green cheese, that would certainly be news so we would expect a newspaper to report it. But, to report that there are rumors that the moon is made of green cheese may be accurate but it isn’t news. So, what business does the Times consider itself to be in, reporting news or spreading rumors?
When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, there were rumors of rapes and murders in the Superdome. There were rumors that the city’s levees had been deliberately blown up. There were rumors of 10,000 deaths from the storm. And these rumors all turned out to be a pack of lies. If the Times’s standard of journalism amounts to “There are rumors…” then they should change their slogan to “all the rumors we see fit to print.”
Dec 31, 2008 - 10:01 am 17. glenn:Watched the HBO documentary about NY resturant Le Cirque last night. Saw “Pinch” make an appearance the same day the NY Times review came out. “Pinch” has as tenuous a personal relationship with the truth as does his paper.
Dec 31, 2008 - 10:15 am 18. LarryD:From the comments on this over at TigerHawk:
“There’s a reason Iseman is suing in Richmond Virginia, not in New York. Bad as this story is as to McCain, an obvious “public figure,” Iseman was an innocent victim dragged into this. The Times called her a whore, and ruined her career. In New York, The Times’ lawyers could argue that she was only collateral damage … that they only meant to libel McCain, not her. That won’t fly in Richmond. The $27 million she’s asking for isn’t enough.
The Times will say that the individual sentences in the article were carefully written and lawyerly accurate, but the overall message impression of the article was that Keating FIve McCain was hopelessly corrupt after years in Washington, and that Iseman put out to get results for her clients. Every other news organization picked up on the Times story that way, as detailed in the complaint.
Can Iseman show that she wasn’t a public figure by using Google hits? … a paltry few before … 82,700 as of today.
A Virginia court may allow her to get some interesting discovery. She should be able to show how the story morphed and expose the Times internal debate about it. …”
Dec 31, 2008 - 10:26 am 19. Pajamas Media » Big Trouble For the Grey Lady:[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]
Dec 31, 2008 - 10:26 am 20. Pajamas Media » Big Trouble For the Grey Lady:[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]
Dec 31, 2008 - 10:26 am 21. Minerva:Times thinks it will prevail under NYTimes v. Sullivan — but it’s a different USSC now. Yet Times could drag litigation out and appeal until Rama appoints a replacement for Stevens and another old fart, bettering its odds.
Dec 31, 2008 - 11:19 am 22. Paul from Florida:The Big, Rich, Corporate, connected, influential New York Times vs a hard working career lady.
Yeah, this is going to work out fine for The Times.
Dec 31, 2008 - 12:27 pm 23. 49erDweet:What, the ashen old tart in trouble still? I thought it had faded away and gone to rust years ago.
Dec 31, 2008 - 12:28 pm 24. jedrury:Tim and Colette:
Thanks for adding to the dialogue. You are correct. The judge may have to decide as a preliminary issue if she is public/private. Richmond is in the Eastern District of Virginia and appeals are to the 4th Circuit, the most conservative Federal court of appeals and surely in an area of the country not known as a star struck lovers of the Times. Smart move to sue there, W & L law school professors filed the complaint.
Dec 31, 2008 - 12:52 pm 25. laughing...:The discovery process is where all the fun is going to be…
which McCain staffers were these? My guess… “mccain staffers” becomes “campaign staffers” becomes “democrat party operatives” as more info comes out.
Dec 31, 2008 - 1:08 pm 26. Barry Dauphin:Can we sue the Times for insulting our intelligence?
Dec 31, 2008 - 1:15 pm 27. thegre8_1:NYToilet paper RIP.
Dec 31, 2008 - 1:16 pm 28. corwin:Not if you buy it.
Dec 31, 2008 - 1:29 pm 29. Cybergeezer:24. Barry Dauphin;
Dec 31, 2008 - 1:38 pm 30. Ric Locke:Man, you beat me to it; I was going to add that we have a class action for insulting our intelligence. Then after them, we can go after the grocery store tabloids.
Not if you gave them money for a copy. Contributory negligence, at least.
Regards,
Dec 31, 2008 - 2:05 pm 31. Dr. Lumplevin:Ric
People need to demand that Congress organize an immediate bail-out for the NYT before it crashes into ignominious oblivion. This is a ntaional insitution that cannot be allowed to fail. Where will all the news that is fit to be print be printed? If this trend is allowed to continue, our news media could be taken over by a bunch of guys in their pajamas sitting at their home computers.
Dec 31, 2008 - 2:33 pm 32. DavidN:Feh. It’s not enough for her to prove the story false; she also has to prove that the Times *knew* it was false.
Oddly, so I’m told, it’s not even enough to do the above. In addition to proving the story false, and proving that the Times knew the story was false, the plaintiffs have to prove the Times had “malice aforethought” when they ran the story. In other words, if someone at the Times were to say, “We knew the story was bullshit, and we printed it anyway, because we wanted to help Senator Obama win the presidency,” they’d probably be ruled (by a judge from the bench) not liable, because the motive was to help Senator (now President-elect) Obama, not to harm or injure Senator McCain. Fun isn’t it?
Dec 31, 2008 - 2:34 pm 33. Lightnin' Hopkins:“People need to demand that Congress organize an immediate bail-out for the NYT…”
At first I chuckled knowingly, and then I realized that is the most rock-solid prediction for 2009 I’ve heard to date. Snap Frank Rich and MoDo forlornly perched upon an iceberg and it practically sells itself: “Hurry up and save us, you bible-thumping rubes!”
Dec 31, 2008 - 4:30 pm 34. progressoverpeace:the Times’ editors and publisher will be revealed to have been simultaneously boneheaded and despicable – an ugly combination indeed.
You forgot “arrogant”. A truly evil troika.
Dec 31, 2008 - 4:35 pm 35. Lightnin' Hopkins:Right on cue, currently at the top of Drudge:
http://tinyurl.com/8cgm8u
Dec 31, 2008 - 6:07 pm 36. Fran:Could it be that the supposed relationship between Caroline and “Pinch” might have influenced the judgement call to go after McCain to clear the playing field and ensure a win for Obama? Caroline supported Obama and the NYT sure did the dirty work for Obama by going after McCain with this sleaze. Good for Vicki Iseman. The NYT is worse than the Enquirer. It’s a breeding ground for has beens.
Dec 31, 2008 - 6:42 pm 37. jedrury:DavidN:
au contraire.
Dec 31, 2008 - 6:47 pm 38. Barry Dauphin:The standard is reckless disregard of the truth.
Not if you gave them money for a copy. Contributory negligence, at least.
Not a dime. But the stuff is in the air… think asbestos.
Dec 31, 2008 - 7:24 pm 39. A.M. Mallett:The proper way to deal with these NYT fellows is to take them out back and beat the snot out of them.
Dec 31, 2008 - 10:05 pm 40. Achillea:They could try the defense that nobody actually reads the NYT anymore.
Dec 31, 2008 - 10:39 pm 41. Rob:These guys, the NYT and all those who follow in their wake, are distributing poison information not bad information, information with malice. Truth be dammed. Intellectual poison.
Dec 31, 2008 - 11:13 pm 42. Allyson Rowen Taylor:It needs to be rejected like bad food. No more money for these guys. Not two quarters, not $250 million, no more money.
The NY Times has lost it’s “glow” now for years. I no longer read the paper rags, nor will I subscribe to them as the article about McCain’s phony affair reflect why I will not pay for tabloid writing. If I want news, I go to the internet and PJM. If I need to read the rags, I go to Starbucks, pick them out of the garbage, and read what I need to and then return them to the place from where they came.
Jan 1, 2009 - 4:01 am 43. Mike:Thanks for the update on the grey lady with a red face.
35. Lightnin’ Hopkins:
“Right on cue, currently at the top of Drudge:”
Yep, you’re right, there it is. Thanks for the link. Interesting point made in the Reuter’s article about what happens to freedom of the press if the news media takes government money to stay afloat. Can anyone say Pravda? But…the main problem for the NYT and others like them is that they have become propaganda rags instead of news organizations and now they wonder why their readership is dropping like a rock and advertisers are staying away.
Jan 1, 2009 - 5:22 am 44. Stephen Rittenberg:—————————————-
By the way, I hope all you rich liberals out there are going to pay a bunch of taxes because Joe Biden said it’s your patriotic duty to do so and I am waiting for my share of the free stuff Obama promised me.
If “rumors” of a Vicki Iseman affair with John Mc’Cain were legitimate news, then certainly the Grey Lady should be reporting on rumors of an affair between a private citizen named Sulzberger and a candidate for Senator from New York named Kennedy.
Jan 1, 2009 - 5:51 am 45. Jack Olson:If the Times wants to print reports without substantial foundation, they ought to hire Jayson Blair. Oh, wait…I just remembered.
Jan 1, 2009 - 7:25 am 46. seven:On the merger front. The new York times should do well combining with the national Enquiror. Gossip rag business is thriving.
Jan 1, 2009 - 7:37 am 47. Barbara Skolaut:“On the merger front. The new York times should do well combining with the national Enquiror.”
Not gonna happen, seven.
The Enquirer has MUCH higher standards.
Jan 1, 2009 - 10:00 am 48. hp:moveon over, huffington post. nyt’s coming to keep you company at your level of “reporting”.
Jan 1, 2009 - 10:15 am 49. Tex Taylor:Celebrity Gossip has higher standards and is of higher quality than the NYT.
The fact a shill and a hack like Paul Krugman won a Nobel makes it all the more insufferable.
Jan 1, 2009 - 10:15 am 50. Greg:Heck the National Enquirer has a higher standard than the Old Grey Whore.
At least the National Enquirer could have the defense that everyone know’s the’re full of it. The NYT likes to call itself the ‘paper of record’.
Jan 1, 2009 - 10:53 am 51. NahnCee:I wonder who’s paying her legal bills.
Jan 1, 2009 - 11:20 am 52. Denny, Alaska:The NY Times is still being published? Who knew? Next thing you know, people will be saying NBC News is still on the air.
Jan 1, 2009 - 1:16 pm 53. zanne:If someone uses the NYT as a factual news source I laugh.
Jan 1, 2009 - 1:50 pm 54. Rubicon:Large segments of the media today seems to have lost its understanding of integrity. Then again, perhaps they never did understand it. If Vicki Iseman is a “public” figure, I would love to know how such a connotation is determined!?! Is it in the eyes of the beholder or is there some other measure?
Jan 1, 2009 - 2:21 pm 55. Gary Rosen:The rise in the numbers who seek their news from “alternative sources” has been astonishing. Based on this, I think its fair to say there will be a real effort by the next Congress to pass all sorts of legislation & for federal department officials to issues all sorts of new & restrictive regulations. After all, even the Congress will have trouble stopping regulations.
Imagine, the internet “edited.” And if I remember correctly, our House Speaker said this is just what she thinks should be done. That is the “real” bailout of outfits like the New York Times. As the alternative media is placed under the control of petty partisan bureaucrats, the old establishment media gets at least a short term reprieve.
In the end, Vicki Iseman may not win her case in the courts. But, perhaps the NYT will get some of what they have been dolling out as they lose in the “court of public opinion.” Many have been defending the NYT for years. But slowly & surely, even the haughty have lost much of their luster as revelations expose just how despicable rumor mongering & resorting on a consistent basis on supposed “anonymous sources” really is.
In short, the NYT is slowly losing their base. And for many of us, it could not come soon enough to a more deserving outfit!
As much as I despise the NYT, we should be careful what we wish for here. If we define libel too broadly, the George Soroses of the world could use their money to harass right-wing bloggers without the deep (if now hole-filled) pockets of the NYT. The best outcome would be if Iseman’s suit brings further attention to the paper’s abysmal journalistic standards, but she loses.
Jan 1, 2009 - 3:09 pm 56. Skip:How is it the National Enquirer has become a more accurate reporter of fact that the ol’ Times?
Jan 1, 2009 - 3:47 pm 57. Nancy Reyes:like other professional women, I shudder when I hear such things, not because affairs between collegues don’t happen, but because any casual business meeting could lead to false accusations by the evil minded…
So yes, I hope she wins. But unless she is a virgin or a lesbian, how can she prove her “innocence”? And if she has ever had an affair, I suspect the NYTimes will find it out and smear her…
Jan 1, 2009 - 10:31 pm 58. George Clarke:News is news. Reporting rumors that have not been substantiated is not news. Any journalist knows that since rumors, pre-substantiation, often turn out to be false. Hence journalistic ethics, which after long experience and a lot of thought have been designed to separte factual news from unreportable rumor. In my view using an official “newspaper” to report rumors, even if you label them rumors, can be libelous if the rumors you report, after you admit your guilt and say we forgot to verify them, turn out to be false. Hit the Old Grey Gas Bag for as many bucks as possible.
Jan 2, 2009 - 1:21 am 59. Cybergeezer:This rag should go into the trash where it belongs; If it’s bailed out, it will mean the Dumocrats are using our tax money to buy their publicity and votes, and there will be the same B.S. in the news forever and ever. This is a “pay to play” scheme by the NYT.
Jan 2, 2009 - 7:09 am 60. Mike:So, where’s all this “Change We Can Believe In”?
I read the NYT once when I was young, but I probably didn’t even inhale.
Jan 2, 2009 - 8:54 am 61. Cybergeezer:Bottom line; The Times is getting a kick out of this-it’s more publicity; negative or not.
Jan 2, 2009 - 10:08 am 62. '08ama:John McSame is a womanizing pig with little or no respect for his wife(es)?
Yawwwwwn, wake me up when there’s some NEW news.
Jan 2, 2009 - 11:06 am 63. Alan Srout:Will the so-called “journalists” at the New York Times/International Herald Tribune work out of their homes after the paper loses it’s building, or will the paper be defunct by then? Enquiring minds want to know.
Jan 2, 2009 - 1:28 pm 64. Cybergeezer:Bush has approved funds for GM and the UAW because he’s going to need a couple of armored up Hummers to get around in starting next month
Jan 2, 2009 - 3:56 pm 65. Jim Baker:Greg:
Jan 2, 2009 - 10:41 pm 66. misanthropicus:National Inquirer nailed that slease bag John Edwards. I am grateful to them. I think they have far more integrity than the NY Times. The Times and lots of other news rags will go belly up in the next year. But the reason is that most people are having their morning coffee with online news these days. I think it is harder to filter out the drivel online, so this “rumor as news” problem may worsen in the future.
During 2009 many more newspapers will fail or their circulation will further dwindle – and there is already talk about the government rescuing them in a manner resembling the auto industry or the finance institutions salvage.
It would be sheer lunacy for uncle Sam to spend the taxpayers’ money on operations which – like the epitome of political corruption, bias and partisanship the NYT and LAT are – are systematically undermining the voters’ (and taxpayers’) best interests.
I respect the Enquirer and LA SEX KITTENS – I know what I get for my money from them.
Jan 3, 2009 - 8:35 am 67. Kortney:Let NYT and LAT die – no regrets.
The NYT panders to a thin strip of New York Liberals
Jan 3, 2009 - 12:59 pm 68. vivo:who subscribe to their idealogy and mirror their
thinking. The rest of the country doesn’t read the
Times.
Assuming the affair was true, this is like what happened to Clinton: who cares what they do with their OWN time? Unfortunately, there are lots of voyeurs and feeble minds around.
Jan 3, 2009 - 10:40 pm 69. Kevin:Whatever occurs inside the Oval Office is OUR time, not the President’s.
Jan 4, 2009 - 8:42 am 70. ChrisPer:43.Mike said “But…the main problem for the NYT and others like them is that they have become propaganda rags instead of news organizations and now they wonder why their readership is dropping like a rock and advertisers are staying away.”
Sorry mate, but even from the far side of the world I know that circulation is falling for reasons of internet news competition, Craigslist, Time-poor lifestyles and so forth – not so much for being a propaganda arm of Bush’s enemy du jour. I am told that bias boosts circulation in NY,DC and NJ; not cut it.
Jan 4, 2009 - 11:31 pm 71. Jimmy37:I think the NYT is at the point of no return. Its apologists will continue to buy the paper out of loyalty or snobbery, and the rest of us will continue to stiff it.
Others believe that the fall of ad money is a general trend and that bias has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps this is true. But when I see my local paper put a pro-Palestinian piece on the front page, written by two Arabs, glorifying the Hamas leaders being killed, without adding Israeli information, I know it has stopped pretending to be fair.
Jan 5, 2009 - 9:48 am