Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Will It Get Ugly? Both Sides Prepared for Start of Sotomayor Hearings Monday
- Obama in Africa
- Out of Africa
- Kenyan President should be “squirming”, says country’s political analyst
- An Emotional President Obama Tours Former Slave Port with Family
- O Baby! The Obamas Visit Maternity Clinic in Ghana
- In Ghana, President Obama Gives Tough Love
- 2 Prez Obama: Questions Sent in Via Text, Email from Africa & the World
- Obama Campaign Plane Emergency: Report Shows it Could Have Been Catastrophic
- Give it Some Time, Obama Says in Defending the Recovery Act
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
The Iseman Sueth
January 02, 2009 10:12 AM
News you may have missed while you were living your life: lobbyist Vicki Iseman is suing the New York Times for $27 million for the Times' Feb. 21, 2008 story "falsely communicating that Ms. Iseman and Senator John McCain had an illicit 'romantic' and unethical relationship in breach of the public trust in 1999..."
Iseman is also suing the reporters who wrote the story, the Washington, D.C., bureau chief and executive editor Bill Keller.
McCain, too, as you may recall, denied wholeheartedly that he had had an affair with Iseman.
The suit alleges that the defamation was made by the literal words in the article but also "what was suggested and implied 'between the lines.'... how the article was, in fact, received and understood by readers, other news organizations and commentators."
Iseman's suit also takes the perhaps less than always responsible remarks of commentators and other reporters -- mostly from cable -- as evidence of the Times' defamation.
"Ms. Iseman has never had a romantic relationship of any kind with Senator McCain," the suit says (for those wondering what discovery might reveal). "Ms. Iseman did not engage in any behavior toward him that was anything other than professional and appropriate."
In a statement, Abbe R. Serphos, a spokeswoman for the Times, said: "We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail. As we said at the time, it was an important piece that raised questions about a presidential contender and the perception that he had been engaged in conflicts of interest."
The suit says that Ms. Iseman, as a result of the Times story, "all hope of anything resembling a normal life for her had been destroyed and permanently altered. ... She was viewed as someone who used an inappropriate romantic relationship as a means of obtaining legislative influence..." Colleagues changed their attitudes toward her.
"The article destroyed the heart and soul of Ms. Iseman's professional identity and sense of personal self-worth," the suit says, alleging a "corresponding deterioration of her internal mental, emotional, and physical health. ... Ms. Iseman suffered intense and severe emotional, psychological, and medical distress and damage."
She says the Times published this story with "actual malice... -- with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity."
Related: the Wall Street Journal's Ashby Jones looks into whether or not Iseman would qualify as a "public figure" HERE.
- jpt
January 2, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (12)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
In a statement, Abbe R. Serphos, a spokeswoman for the Times, said: "We fully stand behind the article. We continue to believe it to be true and accurate, and that we will prevail.
The Times believes their story
is true and accurate?
Yes and I believe in the Easter Bunny!
You must not "believe a story is true
it must be verified by legitimate
sources and proven to be true! Duh!
The NYT and CBS News have become
the greatest source of science fiction
in U.S. History!
The NYT should change it's motto to
"All the News we have time to Make Up"!
Posted by: reaganfan | Jan 3, 2009 6:07:00 PM
Who the hell cares.
Posted by: sweetwater | Jan 3, 2009 8:26:37 AM
"Where there is smoke..."
She was already charging for political favor anyway... What is the big stretch?
:)
Posted by: stirfry | Jan 3, 2009 4:10:57 AM
There is no bigger joke, nor more sad a story, than what has become of the now former "paper of record." Nowhere in the history of journalism has an institution so casually sold its soul, and salvaged its integrity on behalf of an ideology. Though still titled "The New York Times" its function, for at least nine solid years now, has been that of the Democrat Party Newsletter.
Posted by: Thank God for Karma | Jan 2, 2009 10:47:48 PM
Interesting how the Times saw this as an important story, conflict of interest, or whatever, but totally glossed over Obama's many truly nefarious connections.
Posted by: Nunyabizness | Jan 2, 2009 8:40:43 PM
i agree with Ken. McCain should sue also. i voted for Obama and i think rumour-mongering gets to be an out-of-hand game with the media who will rush any salacious story. pay up NY Times. it hurts all parties. the media encourages hateful partisanship and character destruction. they appeal to what is worse in us and we just buy it. now NY Times can set the example.
Posted by: Paul Wall | Jan 2, 2009 8:19:57 PM
Mccain should also sue.
Posted by: Ken | Jan 2, 2009 5:27:37 PM
48. Ms. Iseman was not a public figure at the time of the 1999 events that were the subject of The New York Times article, has had engaged in no activity since 1999 to make herself a public figure. Ms. Iseman was not named in any news accounts involving Senator McCain, his campaign for the presidency in 2000, his campaign for the presidency in 2008, or his period of Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ms. Iseman never sought media attention with regard to any of these matters, and never sought to enter the arena of general public debate. To the contrary, Ms. Iseman eschewed media attention. When the issues on which she worked as a lobbyist required interactions with the media, Ms. Iseman declined interaction with the press, leaving those interactions to others. Ms. Iseman was and is an intensely private person who has steadfastly guarded her privacy, drawing a strong line separating her personal and professional life.
Vicki Iseman WAS A PUBLIC FIGURE BEFORE THE TIMES ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED as she is a leading member of a rightwing Likud group that attempted to free Israeli MIAs held by Islamists. The now-defunct organization was known as The International Coalition for Missing Israeli Soldiers.
Posted by: AJ Weberman | Jan 2, 2009 12:57:50 PM
Sue Em Sue Em!!!
Bury the NY Times!
At this point, about the only thing left with that total ogranization that people have any use for at all is the NYT Best Seller List.
Over the past few years, they proven time after time that they have zero interest in reporting news. They would rather create it.
Posted by: Mike_C | Jan 2, 2009 11:00:49 AM
How can you sue a piece of garbage like the NYT's, that is already BROKE and losing more revenue and subscriptions..ya Notice all the left wing, blame it on America, newspapers are losing people left and right and are waiting for the Obama to get in so they can be bailed out LMAO..
Posted by: who cares | Jan 2, 2009 10:37:34 AM
This story broke one week ago.
Posted by: Peace Train | Jan 2, 2009 10:24:07 AM
Sue if you may Vicki. But we kinda figured this one out for ourselves.
I mean really. Come on now. Really. Eww!
I think she's not being totally honest about her life after this. If anything it has given her more positive visibility on being the vicitim of the most baseless story in history. It also wins the "YEAH hahaha RIGHT" award for 2008.
Vicki now needs the money.
Posted by: Omentum | Jan 2, 2009 10:23:30 AM
Post a comment
