While I disagree with a lot of the New York Times puts out, I have always thought they were a quality paper. Unfortunately, their credibility has taken a big hit with the latest hit job on presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. Devoid of the normal journalistic standards you'd expect of a top newspaper, it largely cites anonymous sources and is incredibly skimpy on details for an investigative piece.
As the New Republic documents, editor Bill Keller appears to have shared the concerns over the piece. But in the end, he seems to have rolled over and given it the green light. What makes the piece even more suspicious is that others, including Fox's Carl Cameron found nothing in the story when he investigated it last fall. Given Fox's expected bias against McCain, one might imagine the decision not to pursue the story was indicative of the lack of weight.
McCain's lawyer, Bob Bennett points out that he provided the NYT a list of times when McCain voted in opposition to the interests of Iseman's clients, but the paper left that fact out of its piece. What a surprise!