Even their “Readers Representative” Says the Times Goofed

Clark Hoyt is the "Public Editor" of the New York Times. As the Times puts it: “The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own.”

In his column in today’s Times Hoyt looks at last Thursday’s controversial McCain story about a possible extra-marital affair. I previously commented here. Hoyt takes issue with story, stating that the Times should not have included the allegation of an extramarital affair without more substantive proof. Hoyt asked Times Editor Bill Keller why he ran the story without a smoking gun. Keller replied:

“If the point of the story was to allege that McCain had an affair with a lobbyist, we’d have owed readers more compelling evidence than the conviction of senior staff members,” he replied. “But that was not the point of the story. The point of the story was that he behaved in such a way that his close aides felt the relationship constituted reckless behavior and feared it would ruin his career.”

But Hoyt disagreed.

I think that ignores the scarlet elephant in the room. A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

I have to agree.