Anatomy of a New York Times Smear

Roger Kimball has a terrific analysis of New York Times smears against John McCain, using the latest non-issue story that John McCain used a jet from his wife's company for perfectly legal travel. Here's the analysis:

1. Prissy introductory sentence or two noting that Mr. McCain has a reputation [read “unearned reputation”] for taking the ethical high road on issues like campaign finance reform.
2. “The-Times-has-learned” sentence intimating some tort or misbehavior.

3. A paragraph or two of exposition that simultaneously reveals that a) Mr. McCain actually didn’t do anything wrong but b) he would have if only the law had been different and besides everyone knows he is guilty in spirit.

We've had 3 stories of this nature so far: the non-affair with a lobbyist, the legal land swap deals approved by environmentalists, legislators and businesses, and now the legal use of a company jet by the GOP presidential nominee.

What do all these "smears" have in common? Two things: John McCain did nothing illegal and the New York Times wishes he did. As a commenter on Roger's thread points out regarding the jet usage, the non-rule in question doesn't even go into effect until December, yet McCain used the planes between August and February, nearly a year before. And also, the FEC doesn't have enough members to conduct its business because...Barack Obama is blocking President Bush's nominees.

As Obama tanks, expect to see more of these non-issue smears.