Recent Blog Posts
-
Nicked Off: The Curious Path of Gawker's Chief
Oct 11 20102:39 pm EDT -
Conde Nast Closing 'Portfolio'
Apr 27 200910:02 am EDT -
Newspaper Circ: 'WSJ' Gains as 'NY Post' Tumbles
Apr 27 20099:32 am EDT -
Idle Chatter: The Prognosis for Newspapers, more
Apr 27 20098:55 am EDT -
Late Breaks: MySpace, NYT, 'New York'
Apr 24 20094:01 pm EDT -
Nostalgia, Entitlement and Murdoch's 'Journal'
Apr 24 20094:00 pm EDT -
Huffpo's Lerer on the 'New and Better' Journalism
Apr 24 200912:44 pm EDT -
Ailes Heats Up Cold Spring with Newspaper War
Apr 24 200912:33 pm EDT -
Happy Friday. Now Watch This.
Apr 24 200910:24 am EDT -
Idle Chatter: NPR Cutbacks, Jon Meacham, more
Apr 24 20098:50 am EDT
Links
- SI.com - Richard Deitsch

- I Want Media

- Editor & Publisher

- Galleycat

- Magazine Death Pool

- WWD's Memo Pad

- Talking Biz News

- Media Nation

- Hollywood Wiretap

- FAIR

- The Media Pundit

- NYT Media

- MediaFile

- Gapper Blog - Media

- Jezebel

- The Business Insider

- Viral Video

- Ad Age

- Newsbusters

- News After Newspapers

- Nikki Finke

- News Hounds

- NY Observer media page

- Valleywag

- Paid Content

- TVNewser

- Nieman Journalism Lab

- Romenesko

- Keith Kelly

- Contact Me

- Cover Awards

- Tyndall Report

- Jon Friedman

- Gawker

- Jon Fine

- Media Shift

- HuffPo Media

Lobbyist Suing 'Times' Over McCain Link Story
Remember that over-baked, under-stuffed article The New York Times ran way back in February about the relationship between John McCain and a female lobbyist? The one that hinted heavily, but never quite said, that the two had an an affair? The one that inaugurated months of fractious relations between the Republican candidate and the nation's most important newspaper?
Well, it may end up costing the Times more than just some credibility. Vicki Iseman, the lobbyist in question, is suing the paper for $27 million, saying the quadruple-byline article defamed her. She filed suit today in U.S. District Court in Richmond, Va.
It's not going to help the paper that its own public editor, Clark Hoyt, savaged the article in his column: "[I]f 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."
Here's the statement I got from the Times:
We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest.
Earlier: How the Times blew it on McCain Ethics Story.
Comments
If you are commenting using a Facebook account, your profile information may be displayed with your comment depending on your privacy settings. By leaving the 'Post to Facebook' box selected, your comment will be published to your Facebook profile in addition to the space below.




