Vicki Iseman’s Lawyer Claims Victory In Big Lawsuit Against The New York Times
One of the most controversial moments of Campaign 2008, you’ll recall, came when The New York Times ran a widely-criticized piece that seemed to imply that John McCain might have had an affair with a female lobbyist. The lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, sued the paper.
Now the lawsuit has been resolved. The Times, in an internal memo published by Michael Calderone, is crowing that she “dropped” the lawsuit, suggesting the paper has been vindicated.
But I just got off the phone with Iseman’s lawyer, and he claims that she won this battle — and that she didn’t drop the suit at all. He’s claiming “complete vindication.”
The Times memo says in passing that a “note to readers” will run in tomorrow’s paper, and the Times says the note will merely repeat what the paper has already conceded about the story in past statements.
But Iseman’s lawyer, W. Coleman Allen, Jr., claims that the statement is a concession by the paper — and that it’s the concession Iseman sought. He asserts that the statement goes considerably further than anything the paper has said before and that it was agreed upon by the two camps after negotiations. He sends me a copy of the statement that will run tomorrow:
An article published on Feb. 21, 2008, about Senator John McCain and his record as an ethics reformer who was at times blind to potential conflicts of interest included references to Vicki Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.
Allen says that the line her camp had sought was this one: “The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.” The original article didn’t state an affair or an unethical relationship outright, but it seemed to imply both; this statement seems like a straightforward statement that neither happened.
“That was what we were particularly interested in,” Allen says. “We’re pleased that the lawsuit was able to be resolved successfully, with the complete vindication that Ms. Iseman sought in filing the lawsuit.”
I report; you decide. The paper didn’t have to pay any money, it should be noted. Right now I’ve been searching through past Times statements on this article and I haven’t yet found one that makes these concessions, as today’s Times memo claims. If I find one I’ll update.
In no way does this new statement state that “neither happened.” The original article quoted unnamed aides who claimed to have tried to keep McCain and Iseman apart. The new statement Iseman wanted merely says the NYT wasn’t claiming to have verified it. Clark Hoyt, Ombudsman for the NYT wrote on 2/24/08 that the paper “offered readers no proof that McCain and Iseman had a romance.”
danp, the ombud is an independent voice, doesn’t speak for the paper…
But isn’t he an employee of theirs? They did print his report, or whatever you call it, and wikipedia calls him ombudsman for the NYT. Doesn’t that make him their in-house referee?
yes, Dan, but the stuff he writes can’t be seen as any kind of statement on the paper’s part….
if she didn’t get any money, she lost. and frankly mccain
won’t be unhappy. the last thing he would want is to be deposed
in pre-trial discovery. so the winner here is mccain.
What concessions? The sentence you quotes from NYT’s notes says simply that the original article did not intend to conclude X and Y. This statement is compatible with (a) X and Y did happen, and (b) the article turned out in such a way that it allowed the reader to conclude X and Y although that was not the intention of NYT.
can’t people read?
The article was all about X and Y. If the Times is now saying they never intended to suggest X and Y, then what made the story newsworthy?
She didn’t win but neither did the Times. Of course they meant to imply she was a problem or they never would have run the story. You can buy a share of their stock for less than the Sunday paper. Iseman almost certainly decided to settle because the chance of getting money out of a soon to be bankrupt paper is nil. It was a sleazy attempt to smear McCain the ineptitude of which explains why the NYT’s is going out of business. Ironically, the sleazier story probably was their decision NOT to report the John Edwards scandal. How bad is it when the paper of record shows itself to have lower ethical standards than the National Inquirer? The fact these events happened almost simulataneously is poetic justice.
@tim maguire: It attacked the GOP candidate. What else do they need?
This is a loss for the Times. The first four paragraphs of their story focus on McCain’s “relationship” with her. The caption under the photo of her focuses on their “relationship”. Sure, the Times went out and got a bunch quotes from unnamed and unknown sources to suggest what they now say they were never suggesting. That’s the oldest trick in the book.
Come on, we know how this works. If a newspaper wants to suggest something or float a pure fabrication to their readers, they simply go out and “interview” someone who will and “report” what that person said.
This is definitely a loss for the Times and a good indicator or why one share of NYT is worth less a single copy of their Sunday paper.
Ms. Iseman had an obvious and huge First Amendment hurdle to jump over in order to go anywhere with this suit, but the original article insinuated more than you’re describing…it paraphrased unnamed people as referring to the “relationship” between Iseman and that old ******* McCain as “inappropriate” and it described aides trying to keep the two of them apart as if something
“inappropriate” was really happening. It was reminiscent of how the Clinton people disparaged Monica during the impeachment scandal.
“The paper didn’t have to pay any money, it should be noted.”
The paper doesn’t HAVE any money, it should be noted.
The repeated claims that Iseman dropped the suit because she didn’t believe she could get any money from the NYTimes, because their share price is so low, is ludicrous. Enron’s stock dropped to less than $1 a share before the company declared bankruptcy in Dec. 2001. Yet dozens of suits were filed against Enron and many were successful. The Times’s building on 8th Avenue would have been a nice asset for Ms. Iseman’s portfolio — if she’d actually been able to win the case.
How would she expect any money from the Times-they do not have any!
Good post. I enjoyed reading it.
Great site and nice article really like what its talking about, I will be linking back to your site from mine.
Hey. Good job. I didn’t anticipate this particular on the day. That is agreat storyline. Credit!