Eamonn Fitzgerald's Rainy Day

Andrew Olmstead sums up the New York Times vs. John McCain case precisely and perfectly: "They've either got the goods or it's one of the stupidest things in the history of journalism." Some tasty comments on Andrew's post with opinion split down the middle.

Over at Slate, Timothy Noah is calling it "New York Times 0, New Republic 0, McCain 1". Best bit:

Regardless of whether he had the affair, McCain wins. If he was Vicki Iseman's lover, the Times and New Republic have now discredited the story by failing to produce much in the way of evidence. If he wasn't Vicki Iseman's lover, then he has shamed the press with his righteous indignation. As a bonus, the scandal story has provoked an apparent rapprochement with McCain-haters Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, who hate the Times a lot more."

When all is said and done, McCain has the Republican nomination in the bag and November is so far away that it suggests next winter. If the New York Times had run this story, say, next October, it would have been devastating. But now? People forget spicy stuff, especially if it is uncorroborated. And especially if you give them a corruption expose that gets buried by the (non) sex hype. This may, indeed, turn out to be one of the stupidest things in the history of journalism. This just in: Jay Rosen has a scintillating post on the controversy. The title is telling: "For the New York Times, Too, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Risks". Hat tip: Jeff Jarvis.