I see the Yahoo front page many times a day en route to one of my email accounts, and admittedly, I also like to check the headlines and see what kind of spin and garbage are being fed to the masses that day.
There had been nothing on the McCain Lobbygate story all day today, despite, as I understand it, the revelation this morning of a Washington Post interview in which Bud Paxson himself confirms that he met with McCain and 'probably' Vicki Iseman, both before and after McCain's strenuous (and ultimately successful) efforts to influence the FCC on behalf of Paxson Communications. As we all know by now, Bud Paxson's version of the events directly contradicts McCain's outraged rebuttal on thursday.
So by late afternoon today I'm a little disappointed that there's been no mention of what seems to me a very salient and damning new development in the biggest story of the week.
Then imagine my surprise late this afternoon when I go to Yahoo's front page and see this headline for one of the top five stories-- Paxson Exec. Denies McCain Meeting
WASHINGTON -
A former Paxson Communications president said Saturday he never met with John McCain about the Arizona senator writing letters to the Federal Communications Commission regarding the regulatory delay of a Pittsburgh TV station sale.
Dean Goodman, who was in charge of the company's lobbying efforts in 1999, told The Associated Press he also doubts that chief executive Lowell W. "Bud" Paxson met with McCain over the issue, and said he doesn't recall such a meeting.
McCain's presidential campaign said the Arizona senator and then-chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, before sending the letters, which have drawn controversy in recent days. But Paxson told The Washington Post in a story published Saturday that he and "probably" Iseman met with McCain on the matter several weeks before the senator sent the letters.
Goodman, who left the company a year and a half ago, took issue with that account in a telephone interview from West Palm Beach, Fla.
"I never met with or discussed this with Senator McCain," Goodman said. "I don't recall Bud meeting with McCain. It would be extremely rare that there would be a meeting that I didn't attend, and I can tell you that I didn't have a meeting with McCain on this issue."
"Whether Bud discussed it with him or not, via some other mechanism, I can't rule it out," Goodman added. But, he said, "I don't think there was a meeting."
I get this far and I'm thinking 'OK, Goodman is obviously a Repug flunkie, eager to debunk the story and cover McCain's ass', but I'm also thinking 'How the hell do they print this and not address the fact that PAXSON HIMSELF admitted he met with McCain?'
And then, lo and behold, buried in the last two paragraphs of a fairly long piece, is this--
...Paxson told the Post that he talked with McCain in the senator's Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters. Paxson recalled to the newspaper that his lobbyist, Iseman, probably attended the meeting in McCain's office.
"I remember going there to meet with him," Paxson told the Post. He recalled that he told McCain: "You're head of the Commerce Committee. The FCC is not doing its job. I would love for you to write a letter."
And that's how the article ends. Now, I'm no journalist, but isn't the fact that the last two paragraphs of the article are in direct contradiction with the rest of the story (not to mention the headline) worth a mention, at least?
There are four major players in this story-- McCain, Paxson, Iseman, and Goodman-- and it seems pretty important that the only conclusion that can be reached upon reading the whole piece is that SOMEONE IS LYING.
How do you write this story and not address that? And if you're the editor of Yahoo.com, what is your motivation for so prominently featuring this shoddy piece ? (I'm afraid I know the answer to that.)
Please tell me if I'm missing something, and I know I shouldn't be surprised by this crap anymore, but it just seems the height of laziness or partisan hackery on the part of the AP, the "journalist" who wrote it, and on Yahoo for the way they've covered it.
Laziness or partisan hackery? I'm going to assume both.