The New York Times has now reported on the controversy over its hit piece on John McCain, under the headline: "McCain Denies Aides’ Statements About Lobbyist." Here is how the article begins:

Senator John McCain said Thursday that an article in The New York Times about his close ties to a woman lobbyist was untrue, that he had no romantic relationship with the lobbyist and that he had no confrontations in 1999 with worried staff members who told him to stay away from her. *** Asked if he ever had a romantic relationship with the woman, Vicki Iseman, 40, Mr. McCain, 71, responded, “No.”

I think that most readers, starting with the headline and moving on to McCain's denials, would understand that his aides told the paper that McCain did have "a romantic relationship with the lobbyist." In fact, however, the two anonymous former aides who were the chief sources for the original story said no such thing.

The only thing said by the anonymous former aides that contradicted what McCain said today was that they had participated in meetings in which the Senator was warned about appearances relating to his relationship with the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. Moreover, McCain's denial that such meetings took place was supported, in the original article, by two other aides who were willing to be quoted. So the headline could better have said, "McCain agrees with aides' statements about lobbyist." Better, that is, unless you accept the proposition that anonymous sources should be viewed as exceptionally credible.

The Times seems to take offense at the fact that McCain defended himself against its smear:

Later in the day, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers leveled harsh criticism at The New York Times in what appeared to be a deliberate campaign strategy to wage a war with the newspaper. Mr. McCain is deeply distrusted by conservatives on a number of issues, not least because of his rapport with the news media, but he could find common ground with them in attacking a newspaper that many conservatives revile as a left-wing publication.

Got that? The Times smears McCain, but that's just reporting the news. McCain and his spokesman say the smear is false and criticize the Times for publishing it, and that's a "deliberate...strategy to wage a war with the newspaper." So, was the original hit piece part of a deliberate strategy by the Times to wage war on the presumed Republican Presidential candidate? I think we all know the answer to that question.

To comment on this post, go here.