Times: McCain Went to Bat for Broadcasters to Please Gal Pal
Ion Media Networks has been making some noise of late, adding original Westerns on Saturday nights and classics such as Baywatch and M*A*S*H.
The broadcaster also turned up in the New York Times’ "hit and run smear campaign"–the McCain camp’s words, not ours–on Sen. John McCain yesterday.
As my DC-based colleague Eggerton notes, McCain’s alleged friend-with-benefits is telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman, whose clients included Tribune, EchoStar and Paxson, now doing business as Ion Media Networks.
The way I’m reading it, the Times suggests that McCain acted out of character to appease Iseman:
A champion of deregulation, Mr. McCain wrote letters in 1998 and 1999 to the Federal Communications Commission urging it to uphold marketing agreements allowing a television company to control two stations in the same city, a crucial issue for Glencairn Ltd., one of Ms. Iseman’s clients. He introduced a bill to create tax incentives for minority ownership of stations; Ms. Iseman represented several businesses seeking such a program. And he twice tried to advance legislation that would permit a company to control television stations in overlapping markets, an important issue for Paxson.
In late 1999, Ms. Iseman asked Mr. McCain’s staff to send a letter to the commission to help Paxson, now Ion Media Networks, on another matter. Mr. Paxson was impatient for F.C.C. approval of a television deal, and Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision.
Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its chairman.
Vanusa commented:
Billy, if it were you being defamed, and you were going to sue for 27 oillimn dollars in damages for a story published last February, would you wait this long to clear your name?It's going to be an uphill battle for her. The basis for her case will be her word (a lobbyist) and those of an adulterous politician (John McCain). I can't imagine that the NYT was that negligent especially after the revelations concerning Judith Miller's (Ahem) reporting in the run up to the Iraq War.
Mirna commented:
You Call This A Scandal? Even if John McCain (or any other generic caitndade who happens to have an (R) next to his/her name) was on videotape sleeping with this lobbyist and agreeing to vote the way she wants him too, the headline at JayReding.com today would still be You Call This a Scandal? The question to be asked here is cui bonoâwho benefits from this story coming out now? John McCain, this is who. For the last 24 hours, the New York Times story has managed to unite right-wing talk show hosts around a common enemy, and if there's nothing more to the story than what we've seen so far, John McCain can expect a backlash to his benefit. The McCain campaign is having a field day feigning exasperation at NYT yellow journalism and can credibly paint their caitndade as the victim of a smear by his political enemies (i.e. the same guys who endorsed him a few weeks ago). At the end of the day, I'm betting a high-up in the McCain campaign pushed the NYT to run this story to set up the GOP's boilerplate victimhood narrative at the hands of the liberal media , helping to remind conservatives who the real enemies are.