DC lobbyist (and McCain "friend") Vicki Iseman drops NYT libel suit without payment

[sabra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/media/20lawsuit.html?hp

Libel Suit Against The Times Ends

A lobbyist’s lawsuit against The New York Times over the newspaper’s account of her ties to Senator John McCain has been settled, both sides announced on Thursday.

The suit, filed by Vicki L. Iseman, the Washington lobbyist, was settled without payment and The Times did not retract the article. In an unusual agreement, however, The Times is letting Ms. Iseman’s lawyers give their views on the suit on the paper’s Web site.

Their opinion is accompanied by a joint statement from both sides and a note to readers, which is also appearing in Friday's edition of the newspaper.

...

The article dwelled in particular on his friendship with Ms. Iseman, a lobbyist for telecommunications companies that had business before the commerce committee, which Mr. McCain once headed. The article said that in 1999, during a previous presidential run, some top McCain advisers were “convinced the relationship had become romantic,” warned Ms. Iseman to steer clear of the senator, and confronted Mr. McCain about the matter.

...

On Thursday, the two sides released a joint statement saying: “To resolve the lawsuit, Ms. Iseman has accepted The Times’s explanation, which will appear in a Note to Readers to be published in the newspaper on Feb. 20, that the article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain or an unethical relationship on behalf of her clients in breach of the public trust.”

That statement was published on The Times’s Web site, as was a statement from Ms. Iseman’s lawyers. They wrote, in part: “Had this case proceeded to trial, the judicial determination of whether she is entitled to the protections afforded a private citizen would have been the subject of a ferocious, pivotal battle, with Ms. Iseman insisting on her status as a private person and The New York Times asserting that she had entered the public arena, and was therefore fair game.”

In a separate note accompanying the lawyers’ statement, Bill Keller, the executive editor, wrote that the case “was settled without money changing hands, and without The Times backing away from the story.”

[tularetom]

1. No payment, no retraction? Sounds a bit suspicious to me

My guess is there's a lot more to this story than we've heard so far. Maybe the Times is letting it lie, but you can bet there are bloggers out there who will gladly dig a lot further into it and inform us all of what they uncover.

And I for one encourage their efforts.

[CJCRANE]

2. I see the opposite.

I think it was a very weak story that didn't have any "legs":

"that the article did not state, and The Times did not intend to conclude, that Ms. Iseman had engaged in a romantic affair with Senator McCain".

My hunch is that the NYT knew that McCain could refute it easily but at least it would make them look fair and balanced so they could then go ahead and publish negative stories about the Democratic candidates.

[SuperTrouper]

3. The NY Times stands by its story!

As soon as the New York Times and lobbyist Vicki Iseman settled her lawsuit against the paper, both sides claimed victory.

Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet told staffers that the Times didn't pay any money or apologize for the controversial February 2008 story that relied on the impression of anonymous advisers that Iseman and Senator John McCain were having an affair. Those advisers, according to the story's lead, were "onvinced the relationship had become romantic."

“We did not retract one word of the story,” Baquet said.

But Rodney Smolla, an attorney for Iseman, sees things differently, pointing out the “Note to Readers” running in Friday’s paper.

“It is a retraction of the implication," he said, of the implication "that Ms Iseman had this unethical, romantic relationship with Senator McCain."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090220/pl_politico/19057_1

[Phx_Dem]

4. Why on earth would she do that??? Maybe they have proof of the affair.

[CTyankee]

5. I would tend to agree with you except that I can see how protracted litigation

against a company as big and powerful as the Times could just be way too expensive for her to handle. Don't get me wrong, I want to believe there was something going on between her and McCain, and it still could be the case, but I think she just gave up in the face of such heavy costs...

[RepublicanElephant]

6. wouldn't the entire gop secretly pay legal costs to protect the guy who was

just their presidential candidate?

they don't have problems raising money for that sleaze coleman's legal bills.

[CTyankee]

7. Good point, but think about this: he was not the darling of the right.

Wasn't the downfall of his campaigm was his capitiluation to the hard RW? So they would want a "purity test" before they coughed up money.

Something is a little "off" here, I just don't know what it is.

It may become evident soon, tho.