New York Times On Sourcing the John McCain Piece: Warmer ... Warmer ... Cold!

David Brooks writes in the Times today that McCain supporters are trying to figure out who the plausible candidates for the anonymous sources in yesterday's story could be.
Just as a refresher, we decided to call the paper's standards editor, Craig Whitney, to ask what the Times rules are on a related issue: Can a person give both an on-the-record quote and appear in the same story as an unnamed source? The answer is yes, but as long as the messages aren't contradictory. Whitney said:
You can’t do that in a way where one person seems like two different people. Let’s say, you quote an anonymous source saying that the "New York Times paid too much for its skyscraper." And later in the story you quote Mr. Ratner saying, "We paid a fair price for the building," but he was the one who complained in the first place. You're then playing it two ways and letting him have it both ways.
It often happens that people wil go off the record for some things and on the record for other things; but it’s not kosher to let them do it in a way where it seems they are two different people.
Jill Abramson answers questions on this in today's Q&A with editors on nytimes.com. When discussing the "two associates" in the McCain story, she said:
The sources corroborated one another without orchestration, an issue, among others, that our team meticulously investigated. During the long process of our reporting on the story, we attempted, time and time again, to persuade our sources to go on the record and let us use their names. Again, there are named sources in the story but some sources continued to insist on maintaining the cloak of anonymity. As we neared publication, both the editors and the reporting team once again tested the veracity of these sources to make sure every fact in the story was accurate. We were all fully satisfied.


















Blah, blah, blah. Same old sh*t. Bye, bye New York Times.
One piece of this story that puzzles me is John Weaver scheduling a meeting/dinner with Ms. Iseman at a Union Station restaurant. The topic of conversation doesn't particularly puzzle me but the location does.
The expressed purpose of this meeting/dinner was to, in no uncertain terms, tell Ms. Iseman to back off from Senator John McCain. Beat it! Get lost!
Needless to say, this conversation is rather sensational, titillating, and juicy. Naturally the McCain operatives didn't want this story to see the light of day, but yet this topic of conversation was discussed at a location, a restaurant, where dining room tables are just inches apart. Restaurant patrons can often hear other patrons' conversations.
A conversation this sensitive shouldn't be discussed in a restaurant.
MC-CAIN/NEW YORK TIMES NEO-CON COLLUSION
New York Times Neo-Con/Neo-Lib propagandists achieved publicity for themselves; and Neo-Con McCain gained greater notoriety for himself. Was this not just another clever political collusion among these notorious Neo-Cons, hatched in the devious mind of political trickster Charlie Black? Clearly, by hook or by crook these Neo-Cons/Neo-Libs insanely intend to win the American Cultural War against the Reagan Conservatives and Kennedy Liberals, even at the risk of self-destruction.
The Marxist Bolsheviks partially succeeded for several decades in the Russian Cultural War; but Marxists completely failed in Germany, France, Italy, Greece, and Spain. Will the Neo-Marxist Neo-Cons/Neo-Libs succeed in America, or ultimately suffer the same catastrophic fate as in Europe.
The American Cultural War is a interesting experimental test of the United States Constitution, as intentionally designed by the Founding Fathers to preserve a government “by the People and for the People” by violent revolutionary means, whenever necessary to secure their Liberty against tyranny.
I see, you CAN'T document John Mc Cain's alledged infidelity, although you CAN document he is a War Hero & POW!!! Humm, pretty "flakey" news reporting wouldn't you say? Your newspaper lost ALL credibility over this mere POLITICAL SCAM! What a price to pay for sensationalism! Good luck on a stock purchase!