As McCain and his campaign staff have moved rapidly to push back on this morning's NYT story, there's a growing discussion about the timing of the story. Why did the NYT run the story today? Why not last December? Why not wait longer?
It seems everyone has a theory. The most likely one - that the Times went to press with this now in an effort to beat others to the punch - also seems to be the least interesting to most people. And as a result, we're now going to have to suffer through a series of conspiracy theories about this.
Take, for example, this reaction from NRO's Jim Geraghty:
"As far as we can tell, back in December, the article looked like an unfair, thinly-sourced hit piece on a possible Republican nominee; now it looks like an unfair, thinly-sourced hit piece on the likely Republican nominee."
Damn those horrible NY liberals! Always trying to screw over the GOP! there they go again!
But let's imagine what would have happened if they had run this at some other moment. Suppose they waited until the fall when McCain wasn't just the likely nominee but the actual one. Would that have made NRO happier? Surely not.
Perhaps they should have gone with this sooner then. Word is they were about to run it in December. Would that have made NRO happier? Again, no. Had the Times run this just before the Iowa caucuses and NH primaries, they would have no doubt been accused of attempting to influence the upcoming race. This would have surely made Mitt Romney's people happy, and given how many of them there were over at NRO, that would have surely shut some of them up. Nevertheless, there still would have been plenty of people complaining that the Times was trying to screw over the Republican Party.
And that's precisely my point here. Newspapers should run stories when they are ready to be run. Provide the public the facts as they become available. To do otherwise invites an endless series of debates about when the "best" timing is. But best for whom? McCain? His opponents within the GOP? His party? The Democratic Party? Specific individuals within the Democratic Party? His family? The list is damn near endless.
A newspaper's duty is to its readers, not the public officials it covers. Discover the truth and follow it wherever it may lead. Political consequences should be something that hte public decides, not the press.
UPDATE: The NYT's Bill Keller discusses this issue directly with E+P:
On the substance, we think the story speaks for itself. On the timing, 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."This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it."
Subscribe to this blog's feed
