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/