Copyright by John T. Reed

To think about this, you need to read the actual story in the New York Times. Here it is. It’s brief. Read it.

If I had read it and not had any exposure to the U.S. media at the time, I would not have thought it was noteworthy.

But the Republicans have thrown a hissy fit about it.

Basically, the story says that McCain is so sure he is Mr. Integrity that he does not have to worry about the appearance of impropriety. He said the opposite in his book Worth the Fighting For, but his actions continue to indicate that he lacks a full appreciation for the need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

The Times did not say that McCain committed adultery with lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 31 years his junior. Rather, they said that “some of his top advisors [became] convinced the relationship had become romantic.” The Times did not indicated that they were convinced of that.

Is that a legitimate news story? Sure. Cheating on his wife is newsworthy, especially for a guy who claims more integrity than most. It is also newsworthy for a Senator to accept anything of value, including sex, from a lobbyist. And finally it is newsworthy if McCain did not have sex with the lobbyist or do any favors for her that he let her visit him in his office and travel with him on private jets.

His behavior is either impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, either of which is legitimately newsworthy.

The headline of the Times story accurately captures what the reporters were trying to get across:

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk

In other words, he is so certain of his integrity—perhaps because he is convinced that he is honest—that he is blind to the fact that others who are less certain of his integrity may view some things he does or permits as suspicious. It is a legitimate and unusual, but logical, possible weakness.

Anonymous sources

The Republicans have made much of the fact that the key sources—“top [McCain] advisers”—are not named.

I am an investigative journalist. In the investigative business, valuable sources sometimes insist on anonymity.

The critics of the story are implying, by the same sort of innuendo that they accuse the Times of, that unnamed sources are nonexistent sources. That is almost never the case. The exceptions are the occasional young reporter who is trying to cheat their way to the top and who gets fired when they are discovered. Say what you will about the New York Times, but they do not make up nonexistent sources. Sure, they’re liberal, but they are also professional.

Republicans and right wingers have lately gotten into the habit of spitting out the pharse New York Times as if it were a total joke that deserves no credibility whatsoever on any subject. Let’s not get carried away. The management certainly is biased and guilty of all sorts of editorial slanting by their decisions on what to cover and how prominently to run it. But that does not mean that the reporters are dishonest..

Republicans have also said that the “top advisers” must be former advisers and therefore disgruntled and of no value.

First off, disgruntled former associates are about the only kind who provide negative information. Gruntled former associates are protective of the person in question. Furthermore, many great stories that were proven to be accurate were originally sourced to disgruntled current or former associates of the targets of the investigation. Look at the greatest investigative story of them all: Watergate. The most famous anonymous source of all time—Deep Throat—turned out to be Deputy Director of the FBI William Mark Felt, Sr. Once his identity became known, all mention of disgruntlement fell away.

Whether a source is disgruntled is a non-issue. The key question is whether the source is reliable.

Investigating Robert Allen

Let me give you an example of an actual story I did. I heard repeatedly that Robert Allen, the author of the then best-selling financial book of all time, Nothing Down, had not written the book. I am, among other things, a real estate investment expert. I was one of two persons interviewed on the 1986 60 Minutes broadcast called “Nothing Down.” The other was a nothing down, hotel meeting room, get-rich-quick seminar speaker whom I was essentially debating indirectly and exposing.

I debated Robert Allen himself on KQED radio in San Francisco and on ABC TV’s Good Morning America.

Each time a caller told me I should tell the world that Robert Allen did not write Nothing Down, I asked, “Who did?” Finally, one source, whom I knew had been associated with Allen, told me he knew who wrote it and that he would ask her if he could give me her name and phone number. He called back. She agreed. I called her. She said that Allen wrote the book, but that it was a worthless mess that no one could publish and that she was not the one who cleaned it up. It was another woman.

OK, I said, that’s less of a story than that he did not write it, but close enough. “Who is the woman who turned it from a mess into a publishable book?” Once again, permission had to be obtained, and it was. I called the woman. When she answered, I told her who I was and why I was calling. Her first words were, “Bob Allen is scum.” I then got her permission to record the conversation and did. I still have the tape. She then proceeded to tell me that Allen wrote the book, but that it needed heavy editing.

I never wrote the story because “Robert Allen’s Nothing Down needed heavy editing” is simply not an interesting story. But what I received and what I did with it illustrate how professional journalists pursue a story from an anonymous source.

In some cases, the anonymous source is one you have worked with on one or more prior occasions and the facts provided to you checked out as accurate. That is how an anonymous source, disgruntled or not, gets to be what we journalists call a “reliable” source, like Deep Throat.

Financial difficulty

The same source who originally brought me the Robert-Allen-did-not-write-Nothing-Down non-story came at me later with another story that Allen was in great financial difficulty. That was a big story because Allen had always claimed to be a big financial success. Again, a number of people had been trying to get me to write that story for some time, but they never had any evidence. I asked him the same question I had asked the others: “Are there any public documents that confirm this?”

He said there were. “Where?” “In the Utah County Court House in Provo, Utah.” I called the court house. Bingo! The court had IRS and state tax liens filed against Allen for non-payment of taxes. There were also numerous disgruntled creditor lawsuits alleging Allen had not paid them money he owed them. I wrote the story in September, 1987 and it was picked up by major news outlets all around the U.S. like the Los Angeles Times, whom I had scooped as a one-man, home-office journalist. My story on him is now part of my real estate investment guru rating Web page.

Not too many years later, Allen declared bankruptcy. He is now back in full-page newspaper ads pushing seminars on cashing in on the foreclosure crisis.

I recite the two Robert Allen anonymous-source stories to illustrate how anonymous sources result in the writing of solid stories that simply would not have happened without their help—and to illustrate how a responsible investigative journalist reacts to the information coming to him from such sources.

Four Times Reporters

The 2/121/08 McCain story is bylined by Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W.Thompson, David Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton. I do not know any of them. But I am virtually certain that four New York Times reporters would not write such a story unless they believed the unnamed sources. Most likely, they were able to find some corroborating facts that matched with what the “top advisers” told them. If so, they should have so stated. They may have worked with the sources before and knew they could trust them.

Bottom line, I am confident that the story is accurate. I think the wrong that has been done, if any, is that the Times ran it on their front page above the fold, thereby implying it was a bigger deal than whether McCain is just overconfident about his reputation for integrity eliminating the normal danger in appearances of impropriety. Similarly, I think the Republicans have also made it “front page above the fold” with all their manic righteous indignation. It’s probably an accurate story, but not a big story.

I am aware that McCain and Iseman have denied, but what have they denied? Only that there was an illicit sexual relationship and that McCain gave her any improper favors. The story did not allege either—although it alleged that the “top advisers” were convinced it was sexual. Rather the Times part, as manifest by the headline, was totally about McCain’s blindness to the appearance of impropriety. To that end, I am not aware that either McCain or Iseman denied that she did, in fact, appear with him at fund raisers, visit him in his office, and travel with him on private jets. Those three things are the accusations the story makes, not adultery or legislative impropriety.

If those parts of the story are inaccurate, McCain might have a libel case. But it’s hard for public figures like McCain to win such suits against media like the Times. Indeed, the main Supreme Court case on that subject is New York Times v. Sullivan. Perhaps more importantly, suits, like the one Paula Jones filed against Bill Clinton, force the parties to give depositions under oath and provide pertinent documents. Part of McCain not suing the Times is likely due to his aversion to testifying under oath about the matter and to his aversion to providing pertinent documents. Fundamentally, those who claim such stories are false need to sue and prove it in accordance with the Rules of Evidence. Mere public relations indignation that is not under oath means nothing.

Conspicuous by their absence in the Times story were such details as how many other people, if any, were in the office or private jet with McCain when he was with Iseman. Those same facts were conspicuous by their absence in McCain’s response to the story. Also missing from both the Times and McCain were details like dates and places. Both sides could gain more credibility by supplying such detail. Neither has bothered to do so thus far. I do not understand why.

McCain also characteized the Times story as a “smear campaign.” That is an intellectually dishonest debate tactic known as name calling. If the facts are wrong, McCain should say so. Calling the Times names, however, means nothing. Indeed, the absence of factual evidence from McCain suggests that name calling is what he thinks is his best way to refute the story. Not encouraging for McCain supporters.

Is it possible that all the unnamed sources lied? Yes. Is it likely? No. Is it possible that all the reporters are colluding to hurt McCain with a false story? No way. It is probable that the Times editors and owners put the story on the front page above the fold to hurt McCain as much as possible? Yep.

Is the story as important as the Times and Republicans are both trying to make it out to be. Not yet—and maybe never.

I appreciate informed, well-thought-out constructive criticism and suggestions.

John T. Reed