Talk:John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 23 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Article name

Just to throw this out here, is this article properly named? So far the controversy has involved McCain and The New York Times. Not to mention the whole NPOV issue with the title.. Perhaps something like The New York Times' John McCain lobbyist article would be better? (But then, that seems a bit long to me)--Bobblehead (rants) 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

When looking at the alternatives, I'm satisfied with the current title. I would object to Iseman being part of the title. BusterD (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This involved both the NYT and Washington Post articles. It is a controversy -- I'm not to sure how it is POV -- it seems to be neutrally titled which doesn't require that it has no point of view. Someone else suggested "scandal" and that is clearly not neutral. That this is a controversy seems to be true. The conflict between McCain and the NYT is only one element. But I'm open to ideas. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
But the controversy is not limited to John McCain. NYT is catching a lot of flack as a result of the article. The POV is that the NYT's part in the "controversy" is not mentioned in the title. It's a bit premature for a "common name" to exist for the issue, so until one is made, the title should really reflect both the acting parties. As far as the WaPo article goes, the triggering event for that article was the NY Times article and the WaPo article hasn't really been sucked into the "controversy" yet. Also, a rename of the article would allow this article to include TNR's article on the build up to NYT actually publishing the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You are correct that the controversy isn't limited to McCain. But isn't that always the case when a mainstream media outlet reports on a controversial issue? The outlet becomes, by necessity almost, a part of the controversy? I could list other "controversy" articles on Wikipedia that don't include the media controversy in the title. If it is determined that the New York Times falsified their information, then it would rise to a level of controversy that required a mention, don't you think? Right now the controversy has to do with the use of anonymous sources and whether it was politically motivated. But because, say, the Paula Jones controversy started in a conservative publication, should it be a part of the title? Now, please, in no way has this issue risen to the level of that, so the analogy is, at best, rough. But the same issue of the initial source of information is involved. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Other controversies that have been started by articles in RS have generally not been to the degree that the NY Times has become part of the "controversy" thus far. I don't think the controversy around NYT has anything to do with them "falsifying their information", but rather publishing the article with the innuendo about an extramarital affair included. The number of editors from other reputable news organizations that are coming out and saying they would not have published the article in its present state and the amount of inner turmoil that the NYT went through prior to publishing the article are important parts of the "controversy". --Bobblehead (rants) 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The article, with much detail, includes these criticisms. Actually, its the only part of the article I authored. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Per WP guidelines, I was "bold" and added the linking device of an en-dash in the title (as Style page says such a thing is done). --Justmeherenow (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
And I've moved it back. We don't call it the Watergate-Washington Post controversy. It's just awkward to try and force the NYT into the title - is this a controversy about a New York Times lobbyist? FCYTravis (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to shove the New York Times into the article headline - it's getting more awkward by the moment. "John McCain New York Times controversy over lobbyist??" Discuss your proposals here. FCYTravis (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Title John McCain–New York Times controversy over lobbyist would improve Wikipedia through its reflecting a marked increase of neutrality. --Justmeherenow (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is it more neutral? The New York Times is not part of McCain's relationship with the lobbyist, nor is it the only news organization reporting on the issue. FCYTravis (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Would the dual-named title avoid so much undue weight to McCain's side of the controversy/controversies at expense of it being given to the controversy/controversies about Times' reportage? --Justmeherenow (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an example of redirection. The controversy this article addresses is the questions raised about McCain's relationships with lobbyists. FCYTravis (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, correct me if I'm wrong here, but we're saying there exists (1) the Controversy over the allegedly goo-goolieyedness of McCain and his therefore showing off his influence; as well as (2) the Controversy of the New York Times' supermarket tabloidliness in covering said controversy; and then also (3... [ad infitum]) the Controversy about whether there is indeed more than the one original controversy and, therefore, what we should call it and/or them, and so on. Is that what we're saying? --Justmeherenow (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
We have precisely one (conservative-biased) source who is calling the NYT's reporting on this matter "supermarket tabloid." There is substantive debate to be had over the focus, sourcing and possible "rush to publication," but that is not the primary focus of either this real-world debate or this article. FCYTravis (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
In all seriousness, for this article, I suggest the title Dispute over McCain's favors for lobbyist. ("Dispute" sounds more neutral than "controversy," since "controversy" so often means close to an outright scandal.) Then, for the lede sentence basically: In (year), John McCain made a couple of phone calls on behalf of lobbyist (name, blah blah).
And only partly in jest, for over at Criticism of The New York Times I suggest the pertinent section be named Times story about McCain's run-of-the-mill favors for—[whispered] woman —[uh—ahem!] lobbyist. (Nothing more than that. Sorry, dear reader.) Its lede sentence: In (year), John McCain traded influence for...unproven-as-consumated, thus but the broadly defined definition of, well..."esS -- iyE -- eX"...... The Times looked and looked but were unable to come up with any evesdropping or keyhole-peeping witnesses—or, better yet, a manilla envelope containing a sheaf of glossy photos some interested party had surruptitiously thrown over the Newspaper offices' transom. Nothing. (But to fill out the rest of the details, such as they are, dear reader, please read the rest of the section.)--Justmeherenow (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What User:Justmeherenow said in jest is correct in fact. The article title is clearly POV since it skims over the fact that this article (self-admittedly, by the NYT ombudsman) was flimsy, had little basis in fact and did not back up the 'romance' issue or the 'favors' issue clearly enough for publication. The spinmeisters making this about a "lobbyist controversy" want to imply that this is a substantive controversy ON McCain's part. It is not, at this point. So far, it's an example of shoddy journalism. Far be it from me to expect anything but liberal mob edits on Wikipedia, however. (And no, I'm not a McCain hack.) - Nhprman 19:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Philosophical question: Is it moreso encyclopedic to go with initial secondarily sourced spin to primary events, or with tertiary analysis?*
The NYT is the initial secondarily sourced spin on the primary event of McCain's doing a couple of faves for a cutesy lobbyist.
Is the primary event a scandal? Or is its reportage? Let's look at a case where I believe secondary media reports were more the scandal than the primary event.
__________

*That is, applying to McCain---New York Times, reductio ad KuKluxKlanum, let's decide what's moreso encyclopedic, the initial secondarily sourced term, the Tulsa race riot, or such suggested terms arising from tertiary analysis as maybe the Tulsa Black Wall Street massacre or the Tulsa "Nab Negro" massacre? Viz., were sensationalistic news reports moreso a scandal, or an interracial altercation in an elevator that was less than assault? IMO, the newsreports.

An elevator attendant who was a young white woman had let out a verbal remonstration as a young black man left the elevator. Nowadays, it's wondered whether this was due his having accidentally grabbed her arm upon leaving or if they had quarreled; yet the authorities' declining to arrest the man leads us to believe that the incident fell below the level of assualt.
Yet the headline of the initial news report demanded that authorities "Nab Negro for Attacking Girl In an Elevator." And a follow-up story reported: "To Lynch Negro Tonight."
Black citizenry amassed to protect the young man and white citizenry to "suppress" them. While the resulting mass murder of black residents was originally termed a "race riot," on further analysis it is clearly a "massacre." Also, there is clearly more of a scandal in the reportage of a black-on-white attack in an elevator than there was in the original actual argument between the two youths.

--Justmeherenow (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've thought about the above and now conclude that while tertiary analysis should in general be considered moreso encyclopedic, in matter of titles we should still to bow to consensus title coinages arising elsewhere than WP. --Justmeherenow (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Schnur - CNN Interview

Dan Schnur,, McCains communication director durring the applicable time period has come out to say this story is not plausible. I think he's comments should be added to the article seeing as he is the only person willing to publicly comment (the NYT story was based exclusively on annonymous sources).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Macutty (talk • contribs)

That has been already added. From the article:

Daniel Schnur, McCain's 2000 communication director with no current connection to the campaign, said it was "highly implausible"; that he would have been made aware of any such concerns.[3]

∴ Therefore | talk 20:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, the article wasn't solely based on anon sources -- John Weaver was a source, much was public record. ∴ Therefore | talk 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NY Tines Followup

Today Feb. 23 the New York Times has an article on the efforts McCain made on behalf of Glencairn Ltd. a client of Vicki Iseman. McCain threatened to overhaul the Federal Commumications Commission if it denied Glencairn its regulatory loophole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timing

I might be missing something but it appears to me that altho the article mentions the issue of timing twice, it doesn't explain what the issue with the timing was [1]. Not being an American, I'm a bit unclear on what the timing issue is since there were no primaries around then and McCain has basically already won the nomination anyway Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The timing complaint is that why did the NY Times wait until now (2008 while McCain is running for President) to publish the article and, considering the NY Times is considered to be a "liberal newspaper", that it appeared to be released just as McCain all but confirmed he'd be the Republican candidate. McCain's relationship (friendly, romantic, whatever) with Iseman has been one of those "worst kept secrets" since 2000 and that it has also been known for years that some of McCain's closest associates and friends are lobbyists. But yes, it could be mentioned more in depth in the article, particularly in the lead. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The timing issue is also that 1) the paper had this story (such as it is) back in December, before the primaries even began but 2) released it only after McCain was a 'sure thing' to win the nomination. - Nhprman 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree with redirection

Since some people are claiming (in a highly bureaucratic fashion) that objection to the redirection needs to occur here rather than at DRV- I'm stating here my strong objection. There was a clear AfD keep. The redirection is directly counter to the community consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Am in strong agreement with redirect. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Fine, why? And please explain how and why that should override a strong consensus in the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a longer discussion about this with more participants over at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Please comment there instead. Noroton (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic response

Howard Dean, and I believe Barack Obama too, said that his personal/professional closeness with the lobbyist, not his alleged romantic affair with her, was the main issue.SteveSims (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)