The Iseman Droppeth
EmailVicki Iseman, the star of that New York Times February 2008 nudge-nudge wink-wink look at Sen. John McCain’s relationship with lobbyists, has dropped her lawsuit.
Iseman — and McCain — denied having any inappropriate relationship. Iseman last month announced that she was suing the newspaper for $27 million.
Yesterday she dropped it.
Part of the agreement her lawyers reached with the newspaper was that the paper would print a statement from her lawyers, which includes the Shakespearean observation about reputation that “Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls” — a quote from Othello the lawyers say shows the "essential link between our reputation and our humanity."
A note to readers says: "The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust."
Really? The newspaper didn’t "intend to conclude" that Iseman and McCain had been in a relationship?
What do you think?
- jpt
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
There may have been some there, but the NYT jumped the gun in concluding a fire must be present.
And of course they meant to openly state that McCain and Iseman were in an affair. That is a ludicrous statement to imply otherwise.
Posted by: matt | February 20, 2009, 9:02 am 9:02 am
“Really? The newspaper didn’t “intend to conclude” that Iseman and McCain had been in a relationship? ”
I don’t think any newspaper should assume or conclude anything. Should be up to the reader to determine that. Just the facts, not assumptions.
Posted by: KR | February 20, 2009, 9:06 am 9:06 am
I think this is another example of why The Times is on it’s way to the ” Ash Heap of History”.
Posted by: Rasputin3.14 | February 20, 2009, 9:06 am 9:06 am
Of course the NYT, giving this nonstory the prominence they did, fully intended to imply that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. Of course they back down now, when the campaign is long over and it is too late to repair the damage. Shameful.
I am glad Iseman got something like satisfaction from them, although it is maddening that they continue to pretend that there was no intent to do what they did indeed intend to do– smear McCain and Ms. Iseman with an unwarranted accusation that would damage his image, and make her collateral damage.
NYT is a shadow of its former glorious self, no longer the paper of record. That is a great shame, but it is also a pity that NYT is not alone in its race to become irrelevant. What Newsweek has become is pathetic and Times is not much better. At least the Washington Post still continues to be a fairly strong news outlet. I want a strong print media and do not look forward to the day I must depend on television and internet sources alone.
Posted by: moderate | February 20, 2009, 9:20 am 9:20 am
My dog ate my homework.
Posted by: Sigmonde | February 20, 2009, 9:21 am 9:21 am
The NYT of course, shifted blame for the insinuation onto McCain’s advisors, who were cited off the record as being worried about the appearance of any romantic relationship, and the Times took pains to point out that everyone denied any such relationship.
The story here is that the Times would not have run the story if it were a male lobbyist who was getting favors from McCain. The romantic involvement only served to divert attention from the fact that McCain had developed a relationship to a lobbyist that had the appearance of impropriety because she was a lobbyist, not because she was a woman.
The story is sexist through and through. Why didn’t they include the close (‘cozy’) relationships McCain has with male lobbyists in the story?
Posted by: Flash Override | February 20, 2009, 9:27 am 9:27 am
“I want a strong print media and do not look forward to the day I must depend on television and internet sources alone.”
Personally, I don’t look at news as news anymore, in any form. I think all forms of news media is on the decline because alternate methods exist to get multiple vantage points and perspectives on the situation. To me its important to try and get the full story and apply some logic to it before forming an opinion. In today’s fly by news, you typically get snippets of facts instead of the full story. In the case above, NYT chose to only float limited and misleading facts to influence their readers into a conclusion. The difference is that if you do that now, you’ll get called on it like they did and your credibility as a news organization takes a dive.
Posted by: KR | February 20, 2009, 9:28 am 9:28 am
I believe you all have your agendas. None of you are innocent. Every reporter, news organization, pundit is vying for attention, and will print, or say whatever it takes to get it, truth, assumption, misleading or outright lie to get it. So Jake stop holding yourself above the fray will you?
Posted by: Thinking | February 20, 2009, 9:30 am 9:30 am
An “The Iceman Cometh” reference? We’ve been cooling for almost a decade but I wouldn’t go that far.
Posted by: mad | February 20, 2009, 9:35 am 9:35 am
At least they have the honesty not to deny they “intended to insinuate”…
Posted by: MayBee | February 20, 2009, 9:55 am 9:55 am
This kind of reporting by The NYTimes explains their stock price.
Posted by: mad | February 20, 2009, 9:56 am 9:56 am
Forget about Iseman or McCain. They helped choosing the smart man who continues tanking the stock market over other democratic candidates, and that’s the crime they have committed. Only we kat cannot go to human court, or, we’d sue ‘em too.
Posted by: kat | February 20, 2009, 10:09 am 10:09 am
No wonder NYT’s stock is so low. They have become less reliable than the National Enquirer.
Posted by: Peach | February 20, 2009, 10:25 am 10:25 am
The NYT report was intended to damage McCain’s candidacy for president, and it did. Now, the NYT acknowledges it was wrong. The NYT should be shut down.
Posted by: tina | February 20, 2009, 10:33 am 10:33 am
Just a little contribution to the Obama campaign via the nyt..nudge-nudge, wink-wink…
Posted by: Parallax View | February 20, 2009, 10:34 am 10:34 am
So the public is supposed to buy into a Shaksespearean quote and the explanation that the NYT “didn’t intend to conclude that Ms. Iseman engaged in a romantic affair . . .” Look, most people if they were alleged of an affair nationally and it was untrue, would go for the killing, not for a vague reputation enhancement and seeming contradiction offered by the NYT.
Where did the NYT get the idea to quote the poetic William Shakpesear? Hmm…Could it have been from the poetry spewing Rod Blagovedich? :”Engaging in a romantic affair” sounds like speculative wording from 1940s about Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. The NYT retraction taken along with a lawsuit dropped for millions come across as an attempt to describe ocean front property in McCain’s home state.
Posted by: kat the real one | February 20, 2009, 10:38 am 10:38 am
I hope the NYT goes broke-sooner is better.
Posted by: Sluggo | February 20, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am
I agree. The NYT isn’t fit to be shredded and put in a litter box. Not after its retraction for idiots.
Posted by: kit kat | February 20, 2009, 12:49 pm 12:49 pm
The gist of Jake’s report is that the NYT’s reporting was unreliable to begin with. I don’t think it was and neither did CNN, which I recall, reported the affair, too. This is reminiscent of the Dan Rather controversy, where one could question if the corporation isn’t siding with GOP political interests. Sorry, but the retraction doesn’t read as credible to me, anymore than Iseman dropping a case that could have earned her millions, but apparently settled for a maudlin and vague retraction of the paper that originally printed allegations of the affair. What is obvious, is that there was a lot of back room maneuvering in an out of court settlement.
Posted by: kat the real one | February 20, 2009, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm
Correction: Sorry, but the retraction doesn’t read as credible to me, anymore than Iseman dropping a case that could have earned her millions, but apparently SETTLING for a maudlin and vague retraction FROM the paper that originally printed allegations of the affair.
Sorry for mangling a sentence a bit.
Posted by: kat the real one | February 20, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm
I think kat is onto something though I am unsure what.
Why would she drop her lawsuit for such a vague retraction?
I would guess that she is tired of the whole thing and wants to move on with her life.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 20, 2009, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
I would guess that she is tired of the whole thing and wants to move on with her life.
*****************************************************
If that’s the case, why did she sue for 27 million in the first place? I’m sure she knew she was in it for the long term, setting off for the millions like that.
Political extramarital affairs are not uncommon, although the GOP would have you think otherwise and that it’s restricted to the Democratic Party.
If someone were to read the original NYT report alleging the affair, I bet the original one would read with more credibility than the recent retraction.
Posted by: kat the real one | February 20, 2009, 4:39 pm 4:39 pm
“If that’s the case, why did she sue for 27 million in the first place?”
I would have said the heat of the campaign but she did not sue until afterwards.
The circumstances are strange but I could care less about who McCain is having affairs with.
Posted by: Ryan C | February 20, 2009, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
The circumstances are strange but I could care less about who McCain is having affairs with.
****************************************************
Me too. But I do care about Republican hypocrisy and a possible coverup on a high profile affair , especially after all the tax payer expense of trying to prosecute and impeach Clinton on his.
Posted by: kat the real one | February 20, 2009, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm