Trollop Revisited

So yesterday I blogged this story about John McCain having called his wife a "cunt" and a "trollop." The story was the kind of thing that's known in the journalism business as "too good to check," which is to say I just kind of linked to it thoughtlessly without considering the sourcing. The sourcing, however, is not very good -- "Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident" which wasn't reported on at the time and of which there's no evidence over the past 16 years outside of Cliff Schecter's book.

Cliff's a good guy, and no doubt reporters from Arizona really did tell him this anecdote. But still, if I'm honest with myself about what I would think of this story if it were being told about a politician I admire, I'd say it was mighty thin and the reality is that it's thin as an anti-McCain story too. There is, clearly, ample evidence that McCain has a short fuse and an occasional penchant for inappropriate name-calling, but there's no evidence that this particular incident happened that meets a reasonable journalistic standard.

Comments

MY:
The same standard could be applied to the hospital story that Hillary told yesterday, and yet the TradMed ran with it anyway.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 8, 2008 10:40 AM

Gee whiz! Why so crest-fallen? No one can prove he didn't do it, so the jury verdict is in: Guilty as alleged! Reproducible evidence is for sissies!

Posted by MarkG | April 8, 2008 10:41 AM

Yes, but wouldn't the objective accuracy of his invective have a bearing on its believability? Being a straight shooter and all.........

Posted by steve duncan | April 8, 2008 10:42 AM

I was thinking the same thing when I read about this. Three anonymous sources? Not good enough.

Posted by Lesley | April 8, 2008 10:42 AM

Has anyone talked to Doug Cole or Wes Gullett, the McCain people who were supposedly also there?

Posted by Jim Naureckas | April 8, 2008 10:47 AM

Has anyone talked to Doug Cole or Wes Gullett, the McCain people who were supposedly also there?

Who cares? What difference does it make if he actually said this or not? Suddenly, there aren't a million other, better things to make the case against McCain with?

Matt wasn't wrong to post this because it was poorly sourced, he was wrong because it's inane and meaningless even if true.

Posted by strannix | April 8, 2008 10:51 AM

I concur, even if it is true, which the evidence for that is shakey, who cares? Like you never heard your dad swear at your mom? Or your mom swear at your dad? Really...

Posted by freddiemac | April 8, 2008 10:55 AM

This is a good start. Now could you retract your ridiculous Colombia post from yesterday as well? Thanks.

Posted by right | April 8, 2008 10:56 AM

I dunno, Matt. 3 independent sources aren't sufficient? Granted, they're anonymous, but they're identified as reporters from Arizona, so at least we have some reason to think they're not biased in any particular way (except, of course, that reporters generally love McCain, which cuts the other way). Now, if what you're saying is that Schechter shouldn't be trusted here, that's another matter, but is there any reason to feel that way about his reporting?

Whether we should care is another matter, of course.

Posted by Glenn | April 8, 2008 11:01 AM

I agree with MY that this story is too thinly sourced. Indeed, the quoted word "trollop" makes me wonder if someone misheard the statement entirely.

That said, I disagree with stannix and frediemac: if the story were reliable, it's hard to imagine that the right response could possibly be "who cares?" I appreciate the wonkish sentiment here -- "I don't care whether John McCain once killed a hobo when he was high on PCP, what matters is that his health care plan is wrong for America" -- but calling your wife a c**t in public is pretty extreme behavior.

Posted by alkali | April 8, 2008 11:04 AM

A) Its not particularly unbelievable. The guys a former fighter jock with a known temper and a foul mouth.
B) Its *exactly* the kind of story that we know gets squelched about McCain all the time by friendly reporters. Just like bush's many linguistic manglings were, for years, privately cleaned up by the NYT.
C) Why don't you ask cliff schecter. Three *non existent* anonymous sources are phony. Three *journalists who chose to remain anonymous from the point of view of the book* are an entirely different matter. IF they exist and if a person could check their story it is no more "thinly sourced" than anything else that appears in print and the press runs with.
D) Would it be irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

enough said.

aimai

Posted by aimai | April 8, 2008 11:24 AM

This sucks! How come we never get to play by Republican rules for sourcing?

Posted by Curt M | April 8, 2008 11:25 AM

I concur, even if it is true, which the evidence for that is shakey, who cares? Like you never heard your dad swear at your mom? Or your mom swear at your dad? Really...

Um, don't know what your household was like, but my dad never talked to my mom that way. If he did I'd have to seriously alter my opinion of him. Granted, this sort of thing wouldn't alter my opinion of McCain very much though.

Posted by ibid | April 8, 2008 11:32 AM

If it is true, it matters.

It is not just that his temper is out of his control. It shows an inability to handle any criticism no matter how trivial. We have a president like that. People with power who go ballistic over criticism or bad news become surrounded by people who always tell them they are right, never disagree, and do not bring the person the complete information if it will be contrary to what they want to hear. This is how we get a bubble boy making national decisions to the detriment of the whole world.

It does matter to women. To humiliate his spouse like that in public will speak to women of a man who controls his wife's behavior by bullying her. Maybe it is unfair of me to not assume men will see this, too. The next question a woman will think of, and perhaps men, is to wonder how far does the bullying goes in private. Is this kind of behavior what led to her abuse of medication? Many women would never vote for a man that they came to believe does not respect his wife and will demean her.

Plenty of women, if they accept this story as a truth about McCain, will see this as a reflection of his opinion of women in general. The c word is completely off limits to many women of all ages. (Not talking here about the way we use words of contempt in humor.) I've been on several message boards where that is the only word banned from use. But even without that particular pejorative, the story is one of contempt and lack of respect or empathy.

And I thought that a journalistic standard was two independent sources. Cliff has three.

Posted by eve | April 8, 2008 11:48 AM

so he let elizabeth bumiller off easy, huh?

people who know or have met McCain know whether this story rings true. could explain the lack of enthusiasm coming from his own side of the fence.

Posted by paperpusher | April 8, 2008 11:51 AM

An already stupid post gets even stupider...

Posted by A New Fox News Fan | April 8, 2008 12:05 PM

I'm not sure I understand why this is considered thinly sourced.

There are *3* sources. And, not just sources, but reporters.

Why wasn't this a story at the time (or at any time since)? Precisely because the language attributed to McCain was so harsh. Indeed, *because* of the use of the c-word, it is a very difficult story to report: there is simply no way to mask the harshness of the word, so it cannot be reported.

In essence, its newsworthiness arises because of the foulness of the language, but the foulness of the language makes it unreportable.

Posted by McKingford | April 8, 2008 12:25 PM

Best of both worlds for Matt: pass along a character assassination of McCain, and then a day later chide himself for passing a long such a weakly-sourced story. Like unringing a bell.

Posted by Fred | April 8, 2008 12:52 PM

It would be irresponsible not to speculate whether John McCain called his wife a "cunt" in front of reporters.

Posted by blah | April 8, 2008 1:26 PM

Oh, I don't know if this is enough to make the editor of the Daily Howler proud, but surely some of his analysts are making note...

Good for you for not debating trivia, a debate which liberals are destined to lose, and instead keeping to substance, a debate which liberals can win.

Posted by Chuck | April 8, 2008 1:29 PM

To all the people that think this story would matter if true, how many people do you think would change their vote based on this? I'm sure it matters to a bunch of people who hate John McCain anyway, but it's dubious that any McCain supporters would change their minds based on this.

Posted by mike | April 8, 2008 1:38 PM

Whether or not it is true, the comments are an eerie straw poll of male attitudes toward women.

Male McCain supporters: "Who cares if he bullies his wife."

Everyone else: "It's just not done."

So don't apologize, Matthew. Nice to know what McCain supporters think of women.

Let me see ... I have my pedestal ... where's my pole?

Posted by Greta | April 8, 2008 1:54 PM

Who would call their wife a 'cunt'? I mean, really. I would need three on the record sources with names before I believed that.

Anyway, now that its true can everyone refer to her with that word?

Posted by An Outhouse | April 8, 2008 2:22 PM

To put this into perspective, the story is about as well sourced as that Enquirer article about John Edwards's love child.

That was malicious (if entertaining) gossip, and so is this (much less entertaining, though).

Posted by heedless | April 8, 2008 2:37 PM

I've made this point before on this blog and been wonderfully abused by dumbasses for it, but I maintain: there's good arguments against McCain, but MY, whom I otherwise tend to agree with/enjoy reading, really descends into being a troglodyte when talking about him, and should consider just stopping.

Posted by Sanjay | April 8, 2008 2:56 PM

Like you never heard your dad swear at your mom? Or your mom swear at your dad?

Of course I never heard my father call my mother a "cunt," not through all their years of marriage, not through the divorce, not after the divorce. I never heard either of my parents swear at the other. I never heard my grandparents speak to each other like that, in more than sixty years of marriage. My husband has never called me a "cunt," not even in the darkest moods of his bipolar disorder, before we got him properly diagnosed and treated (and we've been married twenty years this month). In my world, that's just not done.

To all the people that think this story would matter if true, how many people do you think would change their vote based on this?

Well, it wouldn't change my vote, since I'm not voting for McCain anyway, but absolutely, if I had credible reason to believe (if, for example, I'd seen it with my own eyes), prior to the California primary, that Obama had publically called his wife a "cunt," I'd have switched my vote from him to Sen. Clinton. So, yes, this kind of thing could matter to my vote in some cases.

To put this into perspective, the story is about as well sourced as that Enquirer article about John Edwards's love child.

And that is the reason not to take stories like this too seriously. Not that it's OK to call your wife a cunt in public, but that these kinds of thinly sourced stories come up about all of the candidates, and can't be proved. So that, if you weigh them too heavily, you're too likely to wind up voting your prejudices about what sort of a person is likely to have done vaguely sourced bad things. There have been dubiously sourced rumors about the Obamas, dubiously sourced rumors about the Clintons, dubiously sourced rumors about the McCains.

Posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax | April 8, 2008 3:26 PM

But wait ... is his wife a cunt or not ?

Posted by ashamed | April 8, 2008 4:35 PM

"...there's no evidence that this particular incident happened that meets a reasonable journalistic standard."

But that didn't stop Matt from spreading it all over the universe. Nice job. If this gig doesn't work out, there's always The National Enquirer, Matt.

"McCain calls the Ghost of Elvis a faggot during UFO encounter!!"

Posted by robert powell | April 8, 2008 5:45 PM

Schector responds to McCain's comment about his book here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cliff-schecter/john-mccain-accuses-me-of_b_95613.html

Money Quote:

"He responded to the factual piece in my book about his calling his wife that four-letter c-word that wives so love to hear from their spouses, with this, according to today's New York Daily News:

McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker brands the book "trash journalism" and tells us, "The story is completely fabricated."

No surprise here. It's far from the first time the "maverick" has made himself into a liar, and today's opening statement to General Petaeus once again showed it won't be the last."

And there's more fun stuff from the book - sourced stuff - here:

New Book: McCain Once Physically Attacked Fellow Congressman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/new-book-mccain-once-phys_n_95595.html

All in all, this book should utterly trash McCain as a belligerent, militaristic, total asshole.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 8, 2008 6:49 PM

I think 'ashamed' has hit on the crux of the matter. Sounds like a job for the New York Times.

Posted by Margarita | April 8, 2008 7:45 PM

This sucks! How come we never get to play by Republican rules for sourcing?

Posted by Curt M | April 8, 2008 11:25 AM

But we do! As long as it's about someone named "Clinton".

Posted by Avedon | April 8, 2008 8:39 PM

"I never heard my grandparents speak to each other like that, in more than sixty years of marriage."

I once heard my 72 year old grandpa call my 70 year old grandma an "old bitch" as he was leaving the room and she replied by saying "oh shut up, you stupid fuck" before turning her smiling face around to the assembled family, grandkids and all. Needless to say, dozens of jaws dropped and hilarity ensued...

Posted by Rihilism | April 8, 2008 9:07 PM

For some serious background on McCain, Bill Muller of the Arizona Republic, 1999:

http://www.wmsa.net/People/john_mccain/ariz-republic_chap_I_1999.htm

Posted by Greta | April 8, 2008 9:21 PM

Who cares? What difference does it make if he actually said this or not? Suddenly, there aren't a million other, better things to make the case against McCain with?

That's rich. If by "better" you mean "more effective" at stopping McCain, then no. There's nothing more effective than a statement that if true will keep any woman from voting for McCain, as well as most men. If "better" means "things that make Concerny the Concern Troll less concerned", maybe there is something, but I don't see why anyone else should care.

But it is crazy how he managed to fit "cunt" and "trollop" in the same sentence. Just how often does McCain sound like Mr. Burns after an Andrew Dice Clay concert?

Posted by a1 | April 8, 2008 9:27 PM

Matt, you've decided it was necesary to support wars based on less stringent evidentiary standards, you cunt! (I tried to fit trollop in there, but it's harder than you'd think--in fact, if mccain actually is the kind of roughneck fop that would call his wife a cunt and a trollop in the same sentence, that raises my opinion of him)

Posted by Client #11 | April 9, 2008 4:54 AM

I called my wife a trollop today. She said "What"?
Dumb cunt.

Posted by al | April 9, 2008 5:15 AM

I also quoted Schecter on this yesterday, though in a small forum and in a joking manner. Today though I was looking to see if the story was getting traction and noticed that outside of Shecter (and it's tied to him hawking his book), there was nothing else. I recanted, and am glad you did so as well. But the more we write about it, the more commenters use those words, the more links will show up on google, and the more the rumour will spread. That's the internets!

Posted by Annie Mae Carson | April 10, 2008 11:12 AM

McCain's temper is no secret. Let's see, his wife is a cunt and Rick Renzi (soon to be convicted felon Renzi) is "boy". YM, like the "reporters" who refuse to do there job and REPORT, refuses to believe this. And I'm sure Tim Russert will too and Brit Hume and Chris Mathews and Bill Crystal.....
The msm is doing it's best to paint a fantasy about McCain while trashing the Dems
This is exactly how we ended up with this addled chimp for the 4 years. After all, who owns the media? The wealthiest individuals and corporations around.
Now YM, you be a good boy and supportr their candidate.

Posted by leftbank | April 10, 2008 5:29 PM

McCain's temper is no secret. Let's see, his wife is a cunt and Rick Renzi (soon to be convicted felon Renzi) is "boy". YM, like the "reporters" who refuse to do there job and REPORT, refuses to believe this. And I'm sure Tim Russert will too and Brit Hume and Chris Mathews and Bill Crystal.....
The msm is doing it's best to paint a fantasy about McCain while trashing the Dems
This is exactly how we ended up with this addled chimp for the 4 years. After all, who owns the media? The wealthiest individuals and corporations around.
Now YM, you be a good boy and supportr their candidate.

Posted by leftbank | April 10, 2008 5:30 PM

McCain's temper is no secret. Let's see, his wife is a cunt and Rick Renzi (soon to be convicted felon Renzi) is "boy". YM, like the "reporters" who refuse to do there job and REPORT, refuses to believe this. And I'm sure Tim Russert will too and Brit Hume and Chris Mathews and Bill Crystal.....
The msm is doing it's best to paint a fantasy about McCain while trashing the Dems
This is exactly how we ended up with this addled chimp for the 4 years. After all, who owns the media? The wealthiest individuals and corporations around.
Now YM, you be a good boy and supportr their candidate.

Posted by leftbank | April 10, 2008 5:30 PM

McCain's temper is no secret. Let's see, his wife is a cunt and Rick Renzi (soon to be convicted felon Renzi) is "boy". YM, like the "reporters" who refuse to do there job and REPORT, refuses to believe this. And I'm sure Tim Russert will too and Brit Hume and Chris Mathews and Bill Crystal.....
The msm is doing it's best to paint a fantasy about McCain while trashing the Dems
This is exactly how we ended up with this addled chimp for the 4 years. After all, who owns the media? The wealthiest individuals and corporations around.
Now YM, you be a good boy and supportr their candidate.

Posted by leftbank | April 10, 2008 5:30 PM

McCain's temper is no secret. Let's see, his wife is a cunt and Rick Renzi (soon to be convicted felon Renzi) is "boy". YM, like the "reporters" who refuse to do there job and REPORT, refuses to believe this. And I'm sure Tim Russert will too and Brit Hume and Chris Mathews and Bill Crystal.....
The msm is doing it's best to paint a fantasy about McCain while trashing the Dems
This is exactly how we ended up with this addled chimp for the 4 years. After all, who owns the media? The wealthiest individuals and corporations around.
Now YM, you be a good boy and supportr their candidate.

Posted by leftbank | April 10, 2008 5:30 PM

McCain's temper is no secret. Let's see, his wife is a cunt and Rick Renzi (soon to be convicted felon Renzi) is "boy". YM, like the "reporters" who refuse to do there job and REPORT, refuses to believe this. And I'm sure Tim Russert will too and Brit Hume and Chris Mathews and Bill Crystal.....
The msm is doing it's best to paint a fantasy about McCain while trashing the Dems
This is exactly how we ended up with this addled chimp for the 4 years. After all, who owns the media? The wealthiest individuals and corporations around.
Now YM, you be a good boy and supportr their candidate.

Posted by leftbank | April 10, 2008 5:30 PM

McCain's temper is no secret. Let's see, his wife is a cunt and Rick Renzi (soon to be convicted felon Renzi) is "boy". YM, like the "reporters" who refuse to do there job and REPORT, refuses to believe this. And I'm sure Tim Russert will too and Brit Hume and Chris Mathews and Bill Crystal.....
The msm is doing it's best to paint a fantasy about McCain while trashing the Dems
This is exactly how we ended up with this addled chimp for the 4 years. After all, who owns the media? The wealthiest individuals and corporations around.
Now YM, you be a good boy and supportr their candidate.

Posted by leftbank | April 10, 2008 5:34 PM