Former aide John Weaver told CNN that he approached Iseman, --whom McCain said he considers a friend --during the 2000 campaign because she was "telling people she had special access to and influence with McCain." Iseman admits that she had a meeting with Weaver in Washington's Union Station but told the Times, "I never discussed with him alleged things I had `told people, that had made their way 'back to' him."

To be sure, the Times' story isn't flawless. There are no smoking guns and much of the sourcing is off the record, a point many readers raised in complaints to the paper. What people, particularly those outside of the media, need to realize is that there rarely are smoking guns in these sorts of stories and that anonymous sources are a necessary evil. At times, journalists have to build their cases using circumstantial evidence the same way lawyers do in court.

Unlike television, real life is messy and complicated. All of the lose ends are not tied up in a 30-minute episode excluding commercials. Investigative reporters try to tie up as many lose end as possible before publishing. As the McCain story shows, that's not always possible.

But fear not, Republicans, because there is an upside to the scandal. Conservatives whose stomachs have turned at the prospects of a McCain candidacy are now following the old political adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. To their logic, anyone who was attacked by the Times can't be all bad. They are now opening up their hearts and checkbooks to him like never before.

Freelance writer Jonathan Berr has done freelance writing for the Times. He edits the blog Ketchup and Eggs.