Tech policy journalist Drew Clark says The New York Times missed part of the story of John McCain's close ties to Bud Paxson and Paxson Communications:
After a brief period of Democratic dominance, McCain returned to become chairman of the committee in 2003 and 2004. During that period, he took crucial legislative action that saved Paxson Communications from a bill that would have, in the words of CEO Lowell “Bud” Paxson, finally ruined his company.
Even more ironically, McCain took this action for Paxson in spite of his long-standing position that television broadcasters had inappropriately used the transition to digital television (DTV) to benefit themselves financially at the expense of the American public.
McCain initially supported legislation that would have forced Paxson and handful of broadcasters – but not the great bulk of television stations – off the air by December 31, 2006. Bud Paxson himself personally testified about this bill with “fear and trepidation” at a hearing on September 8, 2004.
Two weeks later, McCain had reversed himself. He now supported legislation that would grant two-year reprieve for Paxson – and instead force all broadcasters to stop transmitting analog television by December 31, 2008. Paxson and his lobbyists, including Iseman, were working at this time for just such a change.
This looks like a basic Bush-style policy for sale kind of situation, a far cry from McCain's self-righteous insistence that he's never done favors for lobbyists or special interests, but also something rather different from the sex scandal The New York Times kinda sorta wants you to believe in.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Sex sells papers. It's a sad truth, MY. The Times knew that they could put together a hard-hitting story with factual support and solid evidence, but they chose to try and sell papers by writing a flimsy, transparent attempt at sparking a sex scandal.
Posted by Trigger | February 21, 2008 11:30 AM