My initial assessment of The New York Times' (NYSE: NYT) controversial story about John McCain's relationship with a female lobbyist gave the paper too much of the benefit of the doubt.Originally, I wrote, "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."
But after reading Clark Hoyt, the paper's ombudsman, blast the piece in his column Sunday, I realized that I was too easy on the paper. The story, as Hoyt noted, "did not say what convinced the advisers that there was a romance. It did not make clear what McCain was admitting when he acknowledged behaving inappropriately - an affair or just an association with a lobbyist that could look bad."
Will Rich Ross really have a positive impact on Disney's movie operations?
Consumers sick of recession, may spend extra on holidays
Corrections, seasonality and Santa Claus
