The same gray lady looks upon Mr. McCain and sees no ethical problem dropping unfounded allegations, such as today's investigation of his reputation as a gambler:
A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table.It's prudent to begin reading such articles in the middle, working towards the end (where all the meat lies), then returning to the top for context. In this case the middle starts about here:
Mr. McCain’s spokesman, Tucker Bounds, would not discuss the senator’s night of gambling at Foxwoods, saying: “Your paper has repeatedly attempted to insinuate impropriety on the part of Senator McCain where none exists — and it reveals that your publication is desperately willing to gamble away what little credibility it still has.”The jist--Mr. McCain sided with the Indians sometimes; other times he didn't; and various times he's correctly stated that the Indian gaming industry is a potential black hole of exploitation and graft, as we saw with Mr. Abramoff. The real jist was to get the words McCain, lobbyist and gambler together in the same story, and they succeeded.
Missing from the article was Mr. Harry Reid's affiliation with Indian tribes and Mr. Abramoff. Sure, Mr. Reid's not running for president but he is running the very chamber where Mr. McCain performs his gambling, er, gaming reform.
But for some reason the Times seems to think its readers deserve more in-depth reportage about a man who entered the public eye around the time Mr. Obama became legal to drink than about a man who won't even release his college transcript from Columbia. Heck, any Mr. Average Joe on the street who attended college and is seeking a government job must provide a transcript or they'll lose points. Shouldn't an applicant for the presidency be held to the same standards? Perhaps the Times is diligently working on this important story right now.