This article appeared today in the New York Times. It is a fascinating biography detailing the military service of the McCain family from his father and grandfather who were both Four Star Admirals in the US Navy, and his three sons, each of which has or is currently serving in the US Military. Of course everyone is aware of John McCain's military record as well. As a McCain supporter, I found this article quite friendly towards him, although most of it is about his youngest son, Lance Corporal Jimmy McCain, USMC, who has done a tour in Iraq.

From a purely political standpoint, this article is solid gold for the McCain campaign, yet they asked the New York Times not to publish it out of concern for his son's privacy. From the article......



Well, obviously the New York Times did not heed that request which brings us to the question for debate....


Should the New York Times have published this article? (and of course the why or why not is implied in the question)


Aquilla

The New York Times should not publish any articles and should go out of business now before the rest of print media does while they have a shred, and I believe it is currently one shred, of dignity left. At this point their main goal should be to their investors and to stop bleeding money.

However, that's not really what this is about...

The NYTs bizarre McCain fetish is difficult to really understand but they are like some glassy eyed groupies for McCain. I don't think they could help themselves from publishing it. Despite the McCain's request they haven't revealed anything that wasn't available the public - so at least there's that.
They don't actively appear to be seeking the death of a Senator's son. Perhaps they just needed to fill 3000 words (where 300 would have done nicely) of "feel good" to appear as if they like America.

Or, perhaps, seeing that while other newspapers, including their own, are shedding readers and employees - they have seen the success of The Wall Street Journal and are trying to:

A ) Accurately and objectively report the NEWS as opposed to what they have been doing for the last (charitably) 60 years
B ) Use verifiable sources and vet their stories so they can avoid Jayson Blair incidents again, and again, and again
C ) They are looking to swing their OpEd board right
D ) All of the above

I don't understand the issue I guess - this was a pure puff piece, a great campaign commercial for McCain, and published after his son returned.

What's the problem again?

:::sigh::::

The question for debate in case you missed it which is not unusual for you here was whether or not the New York Times should have published this article over the objections of the McCain family. Their desires arose not out of political considerations, but rather out of concerns for the privacy and possible safety of their son and his unit. Perhaps I should have made it more general for the boorish trolls who frequent the internet and asked more in general if the private lives of the children of national candidates are off-limits to the press.


Edited to add.....


That's why I placed this thread in the "Media" area as opposed to the political or elections forums. Here's a quarter , go buy a clue.

Aquilla

My point is- he is a presidential candidate- do we or should we respect the objections of the candidates stories on family?

1) They have not put him in any danger

2) he is an adult

3) It was McCain's decision to run for president- and his family has to deal with it, like it or not. Just like everyone else running for office.

I believe McCain to be a pretty good family man in this- as he didn't pimp his son's service as a campaign tool- but that certainly doesn't mean a piece like this shouldn't be published just 'cause McCain asked them too- this is newsworthy, and a price a candidate pays.


I remember how many conservatives really had so very many cruel jokes aimed at Chelsea, when she was just a little girl.

This is a puff piece, of course they should have and did ignore it- thier job is to sell papers, they have put themselves in this position- if he didn't want his son mentioned, he shouldn't have entered the race.

Of course- it could have been carefully planned and cynical way for McCain to exploit his son's service too- might that be a possibility?

Just sayin'.

Here is a dollar- go find another poor conservative persecuted by the mean ol' MSM

...not seeing the problem here.

Insofar as puff pieces go, the story was entirely complimentary to McCain and his son. It might as well have been written by a PR firm working for his campaign.

In another thread there is a lively (and somewhat tongue-in-cheek) discussion as to why various would not run for public office. One of the primary reasons is the total lack of privacy. The higher the position, the less privacy you'll have. After the reporters get through going through your closet, then they start looking at the rest of the family.

Jimmy McCain is not a public figure and he's not running for public office, but his dad is and that makes him a person of interest. He may not desire the spotlight, but by virtue of his last name, he is in it.

McCain is running as a war President. Obama and Clinton are running as peace Presidents. They want to get out of Iraq. McCain wants to stay.

With that stark difference between the contenders it is relevant information what McCain thinks of war. The fact his son has fought in the war his father seeks to pursue to a conclusion is also relevant. The request of the McCain family to have their privacy respected has to be weighed against the public right to know more about the man who would send their sons off to fight in this and "other wars."

I see no harm and no foul in the story.

I have no political concerns about this story. It is hardly a "hit piece" on John McCain. However, as we recently saw in the "Prince Harry is serving in Afghanistan" situation, publicizing a public figure's involvement or potential involvement in a war zone is not a good idea. It not only targets them, but also the people serving with them. You yourself, NT have leveled the charge of "chickenhawk" at people who support the war, the troll wants to "draft Jenna Bush" and now you turn around and when a politician who supports the war has his son serving and fighting that war - all's fair game. Now, I guess he's a "bad father" for letting his son serve in the Corps. So, you want to make it political and spin it anyway you can. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That how it works? Nevermind, rhetorical question.

I purposely placed this post in the Media forum to raise the question of the "public's right to know" vs. the media's responsibility to consider the questions of security and privacy of the children of our elected officials. In this case while I found the story interesting to read, I don't know what purpose it served to further inform us about John McCain and what kind of a President he would make. What I did find was the potential for this story to compromise the continued service of Lance Corporal McCain to his country. One wonders if a few months from now, whether you or the troll or someone else will read a story about Jimmy McCain not being re-deployed with his unit to a war zone and scream at the top of your lungs... "SPECIAL TREATMENT!!!! CHICKENHAWK!!!!"


Aquilla

I couldn't bring up more than the first installment of the article, so I couldn't read the entire piece, but other than stating that Junior McCain is in the USMC [which was already common knowledge], what compromises his security?

Well, the fact that he's currently stationed at Camp Pendelton which may also be common knowledge since that's kind of the West Coast U for Marines, it also identifies fellow Marines who he has and is currently serving with in the Corps. It would not be too difficult for an individual to drive down the 5 freeway from LA to Oceanside and ask around a little bit about Lance Corporal McCain or his friends identified by name in the article. Find out what their unit is, where they hang out, maybe grab a picture or two or just sit around in a bar and listen. You've lived in military towns, DTOM, you know how scuttlebutt works and the old "loose lips sink ships" thing. Now, I'm no detective, and I don't even play one on TV, but I would bet you that I could go down to Oceanside tomorrow and using only the information contained in that article, by the middle of the week tell you more about Lance Corporal McCain and his unit than you'd ever care to know.

Now, I happen to be busy this week selling my house and chances are other more nefarious people than I are busy doing their more nefarious things and McCain will be fine, but should his unit come up for deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan, the publicity surrounding him will necessarily come under consideration - the same way it did when Prince Harry's story came out. This is why I brought this topic up for debate.


Aquilla

Bingo- so, um, who is the troll now? I read the whole story in the newspaper- here are some facts for the troll

1) The boy is back in town- in other words- they gave him a great deal of space while in Iraq- and never compromised his security in any way.

2) Are all presidential contenders children suddenly off limits again? Didn't appear that way when the right wing was saying hateful things about a little girl- do the rules change now for McCain- even though McCain's son is a grown adult, is in no danger, and is treated quite well by a newspaper that Aquilla and BA claim to be ultra-liberal (even though they endorsed McCain

Okay- now that is some serious "tin foil hat stuff' there McCain- why is his son a target, or more of a target, than Obama' children- or Chelsea for that matter? Most folks knew where Chelsea went to college as well.

If, gawd forbid, McCain becomes president- is the mean ol' liberal press going to pick on the poor widdle McCain family? I mean, even to the level of stuff that Chelsea Clinton had to deal with?

Tell you what- when Jimmy McCain has to deal with half the vitriol that girl did- I will be a tad more sympathetic.

But hey Aquilla- keep on trollin'!

Oh...now I see what the problem is here.

You're looking for an excuse to get hot and bothered, is that it, Aquilla?

I'm sure you fear Iraqi insurgents will read today's Times and say, "Aha! We must redouble our efforts to hunt down and kill the son of the Republican nominee for president. Take this photograph and age-enhance it so we can find him. Quickly now!"

Because his last name is "McCain" his life is more important than the other 140,000 soldiers still in Iraq (give or take the four that were killed this weekend)? You seem to be the one singing him out for special treatment.

Maybe things have changed since the days I lived on military bases in Texas, Mississippi and Ohio, but civilians can't just mosey over to a M.P. and ask, "Hey, is John McCain's son stationed here?" That kind of thing tends to draw attention, y'know. I sincerely doubt Jimmy McCain's life is at greater risk in Southern California than Anbar province.

Jimmy McCain's life is no more important and no less important than any other soldier's life. I'll repeat that for the semi-literate and the slow on the uptake crowd. His life is NO MORE IMPORTANT and NO LESS IMPORTANT than any other soldier's life.

Did I say that too fast for you Aquilla? Are you keeping up? Okay. Let's move on.

Yeah, I have called some of those who support the war as long as someone else fights it "chickenhawks." It's real easy to be brave when someone else is doing the fighting and dying. To his credit, Jimmy McCain and his father are not among that undistinguished group. I have nothing but contempt for cowardly politicians and neo-con weenies who start wars they send somebody else's kids to die in. I don't lump anyone who supports the war in Iraq in that motley crew. They've simply bought into the lies.

And where besides your own overly vivid imagination did you get the notion that I thought Senator McCain is "a bad father?"

What I DO think is John McCain is a terrible choice to be the next President of the United States and the primary reason is that I think he's too much of a warhawk and too willing to put troops in harm's way for no good damn reason. This war can't be won by military means and democracy can't be imposed upon people who don't want it. THAT is my objection with Senator McCain. I don't think he's a bad parent or even a bad person. I do think he'd be a bad president.

Maybe YOU didn't find any particular value to the story, but for the millions of others who don't know much about McCain it is evidence that he takes service to the nation seriously and would not put American troops in danger for trivial reasons as Bush has. Certainly Obama and Clinton can't begin to claim they have McCain's personal insight as to what it is like to have a son in a war zone. It's regrettable to me that McCain would inflict that same fear and dread on countless more families by prolonging this futile war.

This isn't about Lance Corporal McCain's personal security or his privacy, Aquilla. It's about you getting your butt on your shoulders in false outrage that's about as genuine as a porn star's orgasm. You just want to vent your spleen a bit about a risk that isn't there and against Cruising Ram because you don't dig the way he expresses himself.

Allow me to soothe your anger. I won't be screaming "SPECIAL TREATMENT" or "CHICKENHAWK" if Jimmy McCain isn't redeployed to a war zone because it is my sincere hope that by this time next year President Obama or President Clinton will be withdrawing American troops out of this ungodly mess in Iraq.

If we do get stuck with President McCain, that's when you should start worrying about Lance Corporal McCain blocking a bullet.

Actually no, NT. I was trying to start a constructive debate over the appropriateness of the media bringing in the personal lives of the children of the candidates in the Presidential debate we will be having. They aren't running for President. In the case of someone like Chelsea Clinton who has actively campaigned for her mother, that's fine it seems to me, she's injected herself into the process. In the case of Jimmy McCain it's different because neither he nor his father have sought to use him or what he does as a US Marine at all.

Will this make him and his unit a special target should they be re-deployed to a war zone? I think there's a real possibility of that happening, and I"m not alone in that belief. The New York Times thinks that could happen because they said they omitted certain aspects of Jimmy McCain's service. The UK certainly believed it could happen with Prince Harry and when the lid blew off that story, a story suppressed by the British media, Harry was ordered home.

So, when this story appeared in the NYT, I raised the question for debate about whether or not this was responsible journalism in light of the circumstances. Does it add to the Presidential debate and help people make up their minds about who to select? Is it such an important story in that context that causing people to think twice before deciding to deploy Jimmy McCain again to a war zone is worthwhile? And yeah, will internet pond scum scream "hypocrisy" if McCain is left at home while the rest of his unit goes into battle? Quite frankly, that wouldn't surprise me in the least. It's SOP for trolls, I've seen it before and no doubt will again, and again and again....

So, what we're left with is a young man's story who has followed in the footsteps of his family in service to this country. His story is told not so much because of the course he's chosen to follow, but rather because of the course his father has chosen. Is his life more or less important because of that? No, I never made that claim. Should he return to combat duty against an enemy who has shown themselves to target symbolic targets, does this story increase the risk to him and his fellow Marines? I believe it could. Is this responsible journalism? That is the question I posed here for debate. My answer is no. It's not.


Aquilla

Michelle Obama, Samantha Power, Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, Jeremiah Wright, and John McCain's mama, Roberta, aren't running for president either, but at one time or another something they have said or done has come up during the campaign. The family and friends of a Presidential candidate always show up in the news at one time or another. Sure Michelle Obama, Chelsea Clinton and Cindy McCain have made themselves very familiar over the last few months, but sooner or later almost everyone in the family gets a little face time in front of the cameras.

John McCain's daughter, Meghan blogs about her dad's campaign and garnered some attention when she appeared in GQ last month looking somewhat....umm...."enticing," shall we say? By glamming up Meghan McCain did GQ put her at risk of being stalked?

Jimmy McCain is not a child. He's a young man who enlisted in the military and that is news. Insofar as to him not being involved "in the process" goes I refer you back to the original article:

At the few campaign events where Lance Corporal McCain appeared last year, he was not introduced.

Wonder if he showed up in uniform or in civvies?

You know what I would consider out-of-bounds, Aquilla? Any story about the schools Natasha and Malia Obama attend or spending a day following Roberta McCain around or a photograph of Chelsea Clinton's apartment. That would be totally inappropriate, unprofessional and possibly endangering their lives and that of others.



The Times didn't publish a photo of Jimmy McCain for one reason: it wasn't necessary. Photographs are used to embellish a story, but they aren't always required to tell the story and particularly so when there is a possible risk to the person's security.

Perform a Google search of images of Jimmy McCain and the best one you'll find is a family portrait from 1999. McCain is just now receiving Secret Service protection, but it is reasonable to guess he already has some form of security which may have already searched the web for such pictures and removed them. I did find one picture of Lance Corporal McCain, but he hardly looks so unique that he would stand out in a formation of Marines.



Not every soldier that is deployed to Iraq is always redeployed time and time again. Dontreadonme is better qualified to address this than I, but I'd be willing to bet there isn't much chance Corporal McCain will be shipped out to any hot zones before November. If any "special treatment" is coming his way, it seems more likely its the kind the keeps him out of harm's way instead of putting him in the middle of it.



And my answer is yes, it is.

You can come up with all the worst case scenarios you want, but it doesn't justify muzzling the press and killing a legitimate story. Maybe if a sniper takes a pot-shot at some Marines drilling at Camp Pendleton, happens to hit Corporal McCain and says, "I got my information from the New York Times" you may have a case, but as it stands presently, you don't.

This is not a new story, but it is news. TIME wrote about Jimmy McCain enlisting back in 2006 and predicted then the possible political overtones.

And then there's 2008. McCain already has strong national-security credentials. His son's service only strengthens his position. It will neutralize the assertions of the left that Republicans are "chicken hawks," pursuing the war for ideological reasons without any connection to the pain of it. And it will probably have a broader effect on McCain's credibility. Critics have accused McCain of pandering to the right in order to solidify his front-runner status, but the power of that argument would be diminished if McCain were seen steadfastly supporting a war even as it endangered his youngest son.

The death of Jimmy McCain in war whether by accident on on purpose would be a tragedy, but no more of a tragedy than any other American soldier fallen in battle. There is no bigger target on him than any other soldier.

I don't know. The one picture they did show of the family didn't show a person in a Marine uniform.



I agree.





That's not what the NYT said. From the article.....



They apparently recognized potential risk.




I don't know what the plans are for him or his unit either, but the Marines based at Pendleton are pretty busy. Many of them have done multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.




I am less concerned with the security of McCain or his fellow Marines while they are at Pendleton than I would be should they end up "over there" wherever there may be.





No bigger target? I disagree, I think there is, at least now and as I stated earlier I'm not alone in that assessment. The NYT recognized some additional risk by the fact they withheld details of McCain's service. The UK recognized it in the case of Prince Harry. The McCain family recognized it by asking the NYT not to publish the story.

Aquilla

Voters want to know if a candidate has a family member at stake, because they feel that, like a candidate's military service, it will (hopefully) ensure that future president's careful consideration before he sends more Americans off to battle. Especially after enduring the present chickenhawk administration, it's an important question. I don't care if McCain wanted to keep it out of the news - if it sheds that kind of light on a candidate, it is more important than privacy concerns or even some safety concerns. It was absolutely correct to write the story.

---------------------------------------------------

I recently heard an interesting story (to me, anyway) about McCain. One of my father's ultraconservative (read: still defends everything Bush does) friends served with McCain in the Navy, and had some kind of altercation with our Republican nominee in a bar - McCain's table was too loud, Dad's friend told them so, and a fight nearly broke out. Anyway, Dad's friend carried the grudge right up until the present day, swearing he'd never vote for McCain - until things distilled down to McCain, Clinton, and Obama. One default vote for McCain, from the old & crabby demographic.

A fight nearly broke out?

Obviously your dad's friend and John McCain patronized far more civilized establishments than I did in those days.


Aquilla

I think the NYT did a decent balancing act here. McCain is the GOP nominee and as a result the sunlight intensifies. Caught in the glare sometimes are those who wish to stay out of the spotlight. While I am guessing that McCain's request for privacy is genuine, it seems like the NYT handled this piece safely. Yeah, there are some details, but nothing any group couldn't find out on their own if so inclined.

If Jimmy gets deployed, reporting on that probably crosses a line, especially if it reveals enough details for enemies to use. Otherwise, I think the NYT was well within its journalistic ethics in printing the article.

Generally, if you're the child of a President or its party's nominee, you can stay out of the spotlight if you choose to. Jimmy got picked up on this one, but I doubt he'll be a focal point.

The NYT could publish the article IF they made no mention of the son except to say he has served in Iraq. As to whether they should listen to the McCain's requests, well...perhaps they should, but we all know how that goes.

As I have argued here, a nation's first and foremost duty to its citizens in wars is to win them. Our idiot reporters, in all media, as well as our grandstanding Congress, want to know how many troops, where they are fighting, how many tanks will cross what border when, etc. Insane. Meetings about wartime activity should be behind closed doors. Anyone ever heard of giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Revealing troop withdrawal schedules, revealing tactics and goals, revealing names and deployments of individuals--especially like McCain's son--is criminal.

America, despite all the wrangling on this board, really doesn't take war very seriously, perhaps because we have been "guns and butter" in all wars since WWII. Not taking war seriously is just plain stupid. In real wars, we do what it takes to win them, and that includes not telling the enemy every damn thing. Heck, could you imagine if our enemy captured the son of a pres. candidate and made political hay with it?

There is a precedent for concerns about this sort of thing. LBJ's son in law, Charles Robb (later Governor and Senator from Virginia) served two tours of combat duty in Vietnam as a Marine officer - being awarded I will add, the Bronze Star. The press was all over that deployment as well . There were concerns expressed at that time for precisely the scenario described in the quoted post. Ironically, some dismissed the concerns by pointing out that another young man of a famous and influential military family had been sent to Vietnam and ended up as a POW. That young man's name? Lt Commander John McCain, USN.

Aquilla