Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 12/31/2008 10:00 am

New York Times Gets Its Comeuppance? Lobbyist Sues Over Story About Possible McCain Affair (Video)

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© Shutterstock

Remember that February New York Times story about John McCain possibly having an affair with a telecommunications lobbyist?

The story appeared shaky, at best, in the middle of a heated campaign season, and left many wondering why in the world the Times would print such a flimsy story. But despite the firestorm of criticism that ensued, the newspaper stood by its story then, and still is now.

Well now, that lobbyist, Vicky L. Iseman, is suing the Times for defamation – to the tune of $27 million.

Iseman argues the article gave the false impression she may have had an affair with the Arizona senator in 1999 and blasts the paper for publishing "gossip and innuendo." The original Times article suggested McCain used his position as committee chairman to improperly favor lobbyist Iseman, and inferred he may have had romantic relations with her. The Times article quotes several unnamed sources — "disillusioned" former staffers of the presidential hopeful — as its basis. McCain’s campaign at the time called is a "hit-and-run smear campaign."

"That The New York Times would make such aggressive and sensational allegations and insinuations in the face of on-the-record denials by Ms. Iseman and Sen. McCain only reinforced the message to readers that The New York Times in fact believed that Ms. Iseman and Sen. McCain had indeed engaged in an ‘inappropriate relationship,’ a relationship that was romantic, unethical and a conflict of interest," the lawsuit says. "Otherwise, reasonable readers would conclude, The New York Times would never have printed the story at all."

Iseman’s attorney told The Washington Post that his client didn’t have a relationship with McCain and that the article "was very damaging to her professionally and personally."

Click here to read the complaint
.

As for the Times, they say the story is true.

"We fully stand behind the article," a spokeswoman said in a statement. "We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest."

Here’s video of McCain in February denying any inappropriate behavior:

29 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Brooklyn Gal
I was very disappointed in that Times story. Journalism cannot be based on gossip. Even if this affair happened, there was very little factual evidence to back up the allegation. The stories and columns on Hillary were not very flattering either.
By Brooklyn Gal on 12/31/2008 10:34 am
f p
Maybe the times went overboard and maybe not—considering McCain’s past entanglements.
By f p on 12/31/2008 10:38 am
DeBúrca obj
The real story here, that has yet to be disproved is “The original Times article suggested McCain used his position as committee chairman to improperly favor lobbyist Iseman”… the whole affair part should have been left out and has been a mistaken focus of this whole story.
By DeBúrca obj on 01/01/2009 8:05 pm
C Hardy
I think that article among many others was the media’s way of making sure Obama got elected. Just b/c McCain cheated on his first wife does not make him a cheater on his 2nd. I have been cheated on and I know other women who have been cheated on but stayed and their husbands changed so it can happen. I never stuck around to find out b/c you fooled me once and that was enough for me… Happy New Year to everyone! Please stay safe…
By C Hardy on 12/31/2008 10:39 am
Patty E
Wow! what a truly clandestine modus operandi —if it were true, that the Times ran the story to get Obama elected….and I cannot ‘go with’ that idea…..I am pretty sure that I shared this here on Wow….(I could be mistaken, and it could have been somewhere else)—-but I am in Michigan…an area which is typically pretty nice for the Republicans who are running for office. For grins, but mostly because I wanted a better ‘feel’ for the momentum of both campaigns, I volunteered for 2 weeks at the Republican campaign office, and 4 weeks with the Dems…..While at the GOP office, we were having to call people and beg them to help get the word out, to volunteer time and money….at the Dems…people dropped in all day, every day, to volunteer…..I barely, if at all, heard any discussion of the ‘alleged affair’….it never came up in face to face conversation….the only place that it even crossed my eyeballs, is on the inet….The article re: mcCain had virtually nothing to do with his losing the campaign for President. I find it interesting when I meet ‘the double standard’, however….my husband as well, screwed around with his Admin. Asst (10 yrs younger).—-ended up divorcing me, so that he could marry her….there was no damage to his career, however, and he is fairly well known in his career field. (His dad used to be the GOP chair for MI, years ago)…McCain was just as fortunate, as his career continued without much fallout….John Edwards, on the other hand, will never be able to ‘repair’ his lack of dalliance discretion…his political career is over….Clinton got impeached for his shenannigans…but mcCain? still going…..no damage…. What is unfortunate to me is that this woman is filing the lawsuit——or maybe it is worse that it is being reported on, heck if I know—-all it does is put her back in the spotlight—-when there are other things that are way more important to sort thru….
By Patty E on 12/31/2008 11:41 am
Marjorie C.
Well now, that lobbyist, Vicky L. Iseman, is suing the Times for defamation – to the tune of $27 million. Good!! That should just about finish them off. Enough with the attacks on women, maybe Ms. Iseman will be the one to finish the N.Y. Times off. They are nothing but a shadow of what they used to be, anyway.
By Marjorie C. on 12/31/2008 1:12 pm
Lady Gator
Marjorie — Gee, only $27 Million! I agree —Good! This year several of the articles in the NYT smelled like doggie farts! I was afraid to light a match! :)
By Lady Gator on 12/31/2008 1:45 pm
Marjorie C.
Lady Gator: This year several of the articles in the NYT smelled like doggie farts! LOL. You’re just too funny, Lady Gator. Have a good New Year’s Eve in sunny Florida, and the best for 2009.
By Marjorie C. on 12/31/2008 2:30 pm
Bonnie Oliver
Lady Gator - LOL. Thanks for the big laugh on the last afternoon of 2008. Happy New Year.
By Bonnie Oliver on 12/31/2008 5:41 pm
HA BIBI
LOL Marjorie, you took the words right outta my mouth! She, Iseman, feels she got a pretty tight case here. When folks don’t use common sense and reasoning, yet go on to report false journalism, “Gossip” (which by the way was only one of the various sources used to disuade the election) you hit them in the pocket book. What’s the ole saying….Money talks and BS walks.
By HA BIBI on 12/31/2008 2:34 pm
Frannie Em
Marjorie There is many a case where an organization was sued and lost and it ended up breaking up the organization. She is one brave cookie to do this because she has just set off all the bells in hell. The NY Times will now probably direct a lot of energy to try to destroy her case. This will be interesting. Well, I hope Hillary is smiling.
By Frannie Em on 12/31/2008 2:47 pm
Brooklyn Gal
This is her life and she has the right to decide to sue the NY Times. It was shoddy reporting and if she is willing to go through this to secure her reputation, more power to her. I emailed the Times along with thousands of other readers about how disappointed I was in this story.
By Brooklyn Gal on 12/31/2008 1:23 pm
Bonnie Oliver
Wasn’t there just a story recently about “The Angel at the Fence” which could have been disproved if only someone at the publishing house had done some “fact checking”. They didn’t check the facts because they fell in love with the story and wanted it to be true. Didn’t Dan Rather fall in love with a story and without a qualm aired a story and used doctored documents as evidence? He lost his job for not checking his facts/sources. The New York Times ran an article that they fell in love with because it diminished the stature of the Republican candidate. Even though they did a pro-form endorsement of John McCain for the Republican ticket, there was never any doubt that the Times was working hard to elect Obama. If they only “fact checked” the story, then there would have been no story; but, The Times wanted to print the story - truth did not matter. These are only the preliminary eulogies that, unfortunately, will probably appear as only “small stuff” in the years to come as the Fourth Estate crumbles about us.
By Bonnie Oliver on 12/31/2008 5:36 pm
Irish Eyes NY
Hi Bonnie: Wasn’t it the NY times that had a reporter on their staff who made up stories etc. They stood by that writer for a long time as well. They ended up on the wrong side of that one too.
By Irish Eyes NY on 12/31/2008 6:44 pm
Bonnie Oliver
Irish Eyes - Happy New Year to you. It is still only late afternoon here but many celebrations around the world are being televised so it feels like midnight. But, yes, The New York Times was guilty of hiring and then standing by that fellow who created news stories instead of reporting actual events. The Times is apparently in deep financial trouble and is losing readership every year. Will they survive? I don’t know and even though I think the newspaper has become a mockery of what it once was and has lost objectivity, I would hate see it go under. Their reporter John Burns, who is their correspondent in Iraq and appears regularly on the Charlie Rose show, is very knowledgeable …..yet I do not know if his writing is as unbiased as he is when appearing live on TV. The newspaper needs to recover their banner standard …. “only the news fit to print”. Will they? I doubt it.
By Bonnie Oliver on 12/31/2008 7:40 pm