Let’s talk about lobbies. I personally prefer them to be decorated in the art deco style, as I… Let’s talk about lobbies. I personally prefer them to be decorated in the art deco style, as I like to imagine myself to be quite Gatsbian.

But according to an article in The New York Times, Sen. John McCain prefers them to be decorated by blondes with interests in telecommunications.

The article, which ran on the front page of last Thursday’s issue, began with a claim that there were suspicions about a relationship between McCain and a young lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, during his 2000 campaign for the Republican presidential campaign nomination. The claim was substantiated only by anonymous “advisers” and “associates” from that campaign, and, besides drawing a dramatic link between McCain and lobbying, had very little bearing on the actual focal point of the article: a survey of McCain’s position on campaign financing and ethics since his involvement in the Keating Five scandal in 1989.

The story behind McCain’s relationship with Iseman, or lack thereof, is not breaking news. The New York Times reported that its staff began to request interviews with McCain concerning the relationship as early as December of last year, when the information therein might still have had bearing on his status in this year’s nomination bid. However, last week’s article was the first in which the connection between McCain and Iseman was discussed in print.

Whatever The New York Times’ intentions were in presenting this article in the time and fashion in which it did, the implications are two-fold.

First, it gives The New York Times the power not only to recount but to define. The carefully constructed syntax of the article changes, even creates, the story. By framing the article with allegations of an extramarital romance, immorality is juxtaposed against McCain’s politics. Therefore, if a reader cannot deduce a judgment of McCain based on his campaign financing and lobby connections, he can instead turn to the senator’s seemingly ignominious ethics.

And by running the story now, when McCain is virtually unopposed for the GOP nomination, a new dimension of political corollaries has been installed. The New York Times has essentially given the ambivalent voter, who promises to be dominant in this incredibly tight election race, an easy out. Where the subject of the article claims to be representative of McCain’s ethics discourse, the undecided voter might instead see assailable moral conviction, generally perceived to be the most egregious of all weaknesses in a politician.

Second, articles such as this piece in The New York Times are clearly indicative of a further stratification between the “American public” and the political-journalism world. The acquisition of information is not a democratic process – there is an assumed hierarchy between those who have the means to distribute the truth and those who are at their will. We are subject to the discretion and politics of a relatively small and insular society, a society often governed by self-interest, a sense of entitlement and nepotism, a society that is arguably severed from our external culture.

From the grand and respected New York Times to the smallest, seemingly nonpartisan publication, no form of media is impervious to questions of influence and obligation. Which story to wire back to the main office, which “human interest” story of the candidates is intriguing enough to be printable, and which story creeps across the already blurry barrier between “news” and “gossip.” What belongs on the front page and what should remain as whispers in the smoke-filled cigar bars of the political-journalism empire?

These are the questions that remain after Thursday’s piece and they are ones that will hopefully be asked continuously until November and beyond. What is the role of political journalists with relation to the work they produce and how it is received? As a reporter, a journalist is asked to present, clearly and without bias, the facts. But a journalist also has the opportunity to become a conduit of influence by choosing which facts to present, how to present them and when. In a sense, truth is at the discretion of the journalist, and it takes a mighty will not to abuse that kind of power.

I do not mean to absolve McCain from any potential wrongdoing by criticizing the means by which his behavior was discussed, nor do I mean to offer any other type of endorsement for him or his campaign. Rather, I wish to encourage those who are predisposed to taking news at face value to approach the next few months of political reporting with a wary eye. And I wish to encourage those reporting the news to approach their work with a bit more trepidation, to more carefully consider which moments are meant for advocating and which are meant simply for the truth.

Happy Birthday! E-mail Cassidy at [email protected] if you wish she would stick to being quirky.