TNR details how the McCain story made it into print

The New Republic has posted its piece on the behind the scenes drama between the New York Times Washington Bureau, Executive Editor Bill Keller, and McCain attorney Bob Bennett that resulted in the story finally making it into print.

The publication of the article capped three months of intense internal deliberations at the Times over whether to publish the negative piece and its most explosive charge about the affair. It pitted the reporters investigating the story, who believed they had nailed it, against executive editor Bill Keller, who believed they hadn't. It likely cost the paper one investigative reporter, who decided to leave in frustration. And the Times ended up publishing a piece in which the institutional tensions about just what the story should be are palpable.

It's not that unusual for stories like this to generate a lot of internal debate in newsrooms. But this story seems to have left some wreckage in its wake.

It was at about that time, amidst flurries of rumors swirling about the looming Times investigation, that the Times' McCain beat reporter, Marc Santora, abruptly left the campaign trail after covering the senator for four and a half months, frustrated by the McCain rumors. A rising star at the paper, Santora had been working grueling hours, joining the 2008 election coverage straight from a reporting assignment in Baghdad. As the campaign headed to South Carolina, the site of McCain's defeat in 2000, Santora emailed the Times' deputy Washington editor, Richard Stevenson, to vent about how the rumors were dogging him on the campaign trail, and left the McCain beat on January 10. "The last thing I wanted was to be a pawn in this thing," Santora told me. "I was exhausted, there were a lot of rumors flying around. I thought the best thing for me to do was take a break."

Santora wasn't the last casualty of the process. Two weeks ago, in early February, Marilyn Thompson, one of the four reporters working on the McCain investigation quit the Times. Thompson had been a staffer at The Washington Post for 14 years, until 2004. She had spent just six months at the Times and recorded only four bylines before accepting an offer to return to her former employer as an editor overseeing the Post's accountability coverage of money and politics. According to sources, Thompson became increasingly dispirited with the delays, and worked around the clock through the Christmas vacation on the piece, only to see the investigation sputter. Declining to comment on the investigation itself, Thompson told me her decision to return to the Post "was an opportunity to go back to the place that has been a home to me." (Thompson celebrated her byline during her last week at the Times. Her final day at the paper is tomorrow.)

Thompson, however, is being quoted as saying that's not why she left.

Several blogs reported this morning that Thompson had decided to leave the Times because of the long delay before its story about Senator McCain was published in the newspaper today. In an e-mail message, Thompson told Radar, "I consider that assertion to be incorrect. The Post offer allowed me a chance to return to management and guide stories and reporting that I care about. If anything, this story made me realize I need to return to management."

It was suggested last night that the New York Times may have decided to finally publish after learning about The New Republic's interest in the behind-the-scenes story. The TNR correspondent who wrote the piece, Gabriel Sherman, closed with a comment he finally got from Keller that addreses that:

This morning, after the piece ran, and as TNR's article was about to be posted, Keller finally responded to repeated requests for interviews. In an e-mail, he defended the substance, and the timing, of the story. "Our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready. 'Ready' means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats." Important as the story may indeed turn out to be, it may have provided the Times' critics with a few caveats too many.

•  The TNR piece is long and detailed

  And provides an interesting insight into newsroom politics. It's well worth a read.

  by quaoar on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:32:20 AM PDT

  •  If anything it gives the NYT Cred

    The fact the story was held and digested, rewritten 3 times, dug deeper and deeper, and had the confidence of the reporters on the story suggests there is more there, there, and this story may just be the tip of the iceberg.  

    What's interesting is the stakes the right has placed on this matter. They've basically given the story legs by staking McCains entire reputation on the story's validity while publically calling out the editors and the paper and the accusers.  It may not be tomorrow or next week, but those who are dirtied now by the Freak Show may have the last say in this matter and that could effectively end McCain's campaign if it's later proven that the scandal and affair are infact true.

    by kubla000 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:49:49 AM PDT

    •  And, it had four top reporters

      on the story - which also adds to the argument that the NYT felt that had a story worthy of this much firepower.

      by dannyinla on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:07:36 AM PDT

    •  Man

      If the media ever actually turned on their Sainted hero, we'd win by 20 points regardless of who our nominee is.

      by dcg2 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:26:55 AM PDT

  •  This story is similar to the Bush story

    that was held back until the votes were in. In this case McCain isn't off the hook because there's still the general election, but the Republican primary voters were denied this information.

    If there were evidence that the delay was used to develop significant new information to strengthen the story, it would be defensible. However, it looks to me like Keller has caved into Republican pressure.

    Of course, conservatives will call this a cheap hit piece but this story has a solid inside source, so that charge doesn't hold up.

    by FishOutofWater on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:52:57 AM PDT

•  Thanks

  Interesting piece.  Still leaves unanswered the question of what happened between December and now to convince the editors to run the piece.

  by Paleo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:40:59 AM PDT

  •  It sounds like

    it just kept being sent back for more reporting and rewriting and until Keller finally caved after he transformed it into some kind of feature story.

    The headline is especially puzzling. It says virtually nothing.

    by quaoar on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM PDT

•  I think it kind of backs up the theory

  that there is a lot more "there" there. More than one reporter quit because they wouldn't run the story. Why would McCain hire a criminal lawyer, then pressure news outlets not to investigate it?  

  by DJShay on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:44:12 AM PDT

  •  I sure hope there is more

    If not, they're idiots for publishing this.

    by zreeb on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:45:31 AM PDT

    •  It's hard to find the there there

      if both people are denying it. There should be more investigation of the lobbyist favors angle but unless Iseman breaks the affairs story is weak.

      by Hope08 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:49:15 AM PDT

    •  don't uprate

      this guy is troll on sight, IMO. Check the two hidden comments.

      by taylormattd on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:18:10 AM PDT

  •  Yes why hire Bennett for a non-story?

    and that's a point that the article also makes.

    by dannyinla on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:08:40 AM PDT

•  One of the more interesting tidbits

  in the TNR piece and others, but not much remarked on, is that Drudge had the story in December.  It's unlikely that others aren't digging into this story, and the Grey Lady may have feared being scooped.

  by mspicata on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:49:21 AM PDT

  •  When you say Drudge had story

    I think it is more accurate to say Drudge learned that New York Times was working on the story.

    MEDIA FIREWORKS: MCCAIN PLEADS WITH NY TIMES TO SPIKE STORY
    Thu Dec 20 2007 10:49:27 ET

    Just weeks away from a possible surprise victory in the primaries, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz has been waging a ferocious behind the scenes battle with the NEW YORK TIMES, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, and has hired DC power lawyer Bob Bennett to mount a bold defense against charges of giving special treatment to a lobbyist!

    McCain has personally pleaded with NY TIMES editor Bill Keller not to publish the high-impact report involving key telecom legislation before the Senate Commerce Committee, newsroom insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

    The paper's Jim Rutenberg has been leading the investigation and is described as beyond frustrated with McCain's aggressive and angry efforts to stop any and all publication.

    The drama involves a woman lobbyist who may have helped to write key telecom legislation. The woman in question has retained counsel and strongly denies receiving any special treatment from McCain.

    MORE
    http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...

    by science first on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:54:11 AM PDT

    •  True.

      My take was that Drudge's info was sufficient to start other journalists digging.

      by mspicata on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:09:15 AM PDT

•  Thanks for this...

  interesting topic and a good article. I wouldn't have seen this otherwise since I don't go to TNR very often.  Thanks again.

  by dougymi on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:56:42 AM PDT