I actually have two cents to toss in. 

I am not queasy about salacious details involving sex that might be
central to a news story. But I do think that it's important to ask: Is
the fact of a possible sexual relationship sensibly embedded in a
coherent and sound story? Is the sex logically connected to the other
facts of the story or to the alleged improprieties? I know that some
people feel they are central to the McCain story. And they may be.

I'm not so sure.

The fascination with sex is quintessentially human. Libido is a strong
instinct. But that is why the presence of sex in this or any other
investigative story runs of the risk of hijacking the more mundane and
systemic allegations that might be at the core of what was allegedly
improper. 

So I wonder: Did the sex in this story make it a sex story rather than a
corruption story? 

I am open to persuasion. But let me put the question another way: If we
knew for sure what happened behind closed doors between Senator McCain
and the lobbyist, what would be the value added to the story?


Steve





----Original Message-----
From: HCJ [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bernard
L. Stein
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: And another

Here's press critic and NYU prof Jay Rosen on The Times and McCain:
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/