I may have been too kind in my assessment of the New York Times, as Ambinder notes:

“Associates” — that’s an umbrella term for friends, family members, aides and the like. But if the Times really had former paid campaign staffers — aides — making these allegations, it would have attributed them to “aides.” Who might associates be? Who might disillusioned associates be? How about Washington lobbyists who (a) may have known Vicki Iseman personally, (b) supported McCain in 2000, (b) would have been of significant enough stature to known McCain personally, and (c) either endorsed another candidate in 2008 or refused to endorse McCain? The tip for this story originated in November, according to the New Republic — in other words, during the height of the primary season when McCain was beginning to make a comeback in New Hampshire.

Considering how the poster boys for bad journalism and publishing lies in the past decade or so have been Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, and Scott Beauchamp, it’s not exactly reassuring to hear that the New York Times may have been prompted to run the story because they heard the New Republic was working on a similar piece.

UPDATE: Campaign Spot reader Dale offers another contrast that doesn’t reflect well on the New York Times. Nobody touched the tale of John Edwards’ alleged affair and love child but the National Enquirer. In that case as well, both parties denied the affair.