Following the publication of a February 21 New York Times article regarding Sen. John McCain's ties to lobbyists, including telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman, which reported that in 1999, “according to two former McCain associates, some of the senator's advisers had grown so concerned that the relationship had become romantic that they took steps to intervene,” Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, and MSNBC political analysts Pat Buchanan and Mike Barnicle sharply criticized the Times for its use of anonymous sourcing in the report. But on the June 3 and 4 editions of Morning Joe, in discussing Vanity Fair national editor Todd S. Purdum's article, which contained numerous anonymously sourced claims about former President Bill Clinton, Scarborough, Barnicle, and Buchanan offered no such criticism. As Media Matters for America noted, Purdum cited quotes or paraphrases of nearly two dozen anonymous sources in discussing what Purdum referred to as “a steady stream of tabloid speculation and Internet intimations that the Big Dog might be up to his old tricks” -- despite his acknowledgement that there was no “proof of post-presidential sexual indiscretions on Clinton's part.”

On the February 21 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough said of the Times' McCain article:

SCARBOROUGH: They better have pictures. They better have receipts. They better have -- if they're going to claim here -- and I would say this about any politician -- if they're going to claim that John McCain had an affair and he misused his position as chairman of the Commerce Committee to help multinational corporations because of it, they better have more than two unnamed sources who were former disgruntled employees. And if I am wrong, I -- you know, we -- seriously, tomorrow we have to get journalism professors on this show.

Earlier in the program, Scarborough said of the article, “And for The New York Times to suggest this ... all of this based, [co-host] Willie Geist, on two disillusioned former associates who are not named to me seems like an incredible stretch. My hope is, for The New York Times' sake, that they have this thing sourced on background with receipts and whatever else they need because this is a stunning news article to be -- to be -- Willie, to be so thinly sourced.” Later in that segment, he asserted: "[M]y guess is that The New York Times has a lot more that they did not print. They have a lot more to substantiate this article. I, again, I hope for their sake that they do because right now they're basing it on -- this is just such a thinly sourced story. It is so prejudicial to John McCain on every front."

But Scarborough offered no such criticism of the Vanity Fair article's use of anonymous sources while discussing the story in three separate segments on the June 4 edition of Morning Joe, nor did he suggest that the report was “prejudicial to” Clinton. Regarding Sen. Barack Obama's possible selection of a vice presidential running mate, Scarborough said: “Let's talk about the Vanity Fair article very quickly, and all of the garbage that that brought back into it. It looks like that Hillary Clinton could be disqualified because of Bill Clinton, right?” During a separate segment, Scarborough asked NBC News special correspondent Tom Brokaw: "[D]oesn't the Todd Purdum Vanity Fair article just add another layer of complication for a Clinton vice presidency? When, after all, what Todd ... wrote in that article is what we've all been hearing for a year and a half." And during a third segment, Scarborough asked Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, whether the Vanity Fair article about Bill Clinton “hurts” Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the vice presidential nominee. Yet when McAuliffe said the article “was a hit piece; nobody quoted” and that “I would like legislation. If you're going to say something, you've got to go on the record and say it,” Scarborough did not address the issue of sourcing, except to ask McAuliffe: “He call you?”

Similarly, on the February 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, Barnicle said of the Times' article, “God, I hate this story,” adding, “I hate it for what it does to the process of journalism.” He also asserted, “I'm reading it, a couple of anonymous sources. If you're a newspaper editor and someone comes to you and says, 'Hey, I've got two anonymous sources. They think there's a suspicion of sex between a United States senator and a lobbyist' -- what do you say? You say, 'Yeah, please. Come back later.' ” Barnicle added: “That's not front-page stuff. But it's front-page today.” Later in the segment, Barnicle told host Chris Matthews, "[T]his particular story here, Chris, again, the problem is the anonymous sources. It's a huge issue, I mean, in terms of, it's on the front page of The New York Times. It's magnified beyond all proportion."

And on the February 21 edition of MSNBC Live, Buchanan said of McCain's assertion that the Times story was “not true”:

BUCHANAN: But there's no question about it. If McCain has told the straight, honest truth about his conversations with his aides and about this woman, then [Times executive editor] Bill Keller should be out of a job. I mean -- because of what's been done to McCain's reputation by this story. If it's no better sourced than what Chris is saying, the two disgruntled guys saying they thought or believed, and you put that on the front page, you should be out of a job.

But neither Barnicle nor Buchanan offered similar condemnations of Vanity Fair or Purdum while discussing the article on the June 3 edition of Morning Joe. During the segment, co-host Willie Geist read a portion of the article in which Purdum wrote:

“Over the last few years, aides have winced at repeated tabloid reports about Clinton's episodic friendship and occasional dinners out with Belinda Stronach, a twice-divorced billionaire auto-parts heiress and member of the Canadian Parliament 20 years his junior, or at more recent high-end Hollywood dinner-party gossip that Clinton has been seen visiting with the actress Gina Gershon in California. There has been talk of a female friend in Chappaqua, a woman in a bar at a meeting of the Aspen Institute, and a public sighting of a Clinton, [liberal activist and movie and music producer Steve] Bing, and a ravishing entourage in a New York elevator that, a former Clinton aide told me, led a business leader who saw them to say: I don't know what the guy was doing, it was so clear that it was just no good.”

Neither Barnicle nor Buchanan pointed to the anonymous sourcing in the paragraph. Barnicle offered no response and Buchanan laughed, saying only, “I don't want Todd Purdum doing a profile of me, I'll tell you that.” Later in the segment, Barnicle said of the Vanity Fair article:

BARNICLE: When you read the entire piece, when you read Todd's entire piece, I think the most salient aspect of the piece is how he points out and quotes several close associates of former President Clinton as saying his political prowess today, as compared to when he was in office, 1992, 1996 -- the last time he ran was in 1996 -- the difference between the cultures, media cultures is night and day. And he has just lost a step."

From the February 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

SCARBOROUGH: Let's look at this for a second.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): OK.

SCARBOROUGH: Two disillusioned former associates are the basis of this story that The New York Times ran on --

BRZEZINSKI: I really want to ask the editor of The New York Times about this.

SCARBOROUGH: -- on page one. Again, the charges are about as bad as charges could be for John McCain for two reasons: Reason number one, the evangelical base of the Republican Party will be turned away by John McCain because of this -- a base that he is right now fighting to get on his side. This is a base that turned quickly against George W. Bush in 2000 on the last weekend when it was revealed that he had a DUI like 30 years ago. That's number one.

Number two: John McCain is the maverick. He is the reformer. That is a central part of his message. And for The New York Times to suggest this -- and, again, I have been very tough on John McCain through this primary process, for the record -- but to suggest -- all of this based, Willie Geist, on two disillusioned former associates who are not named to me seems like an incredible stretch. My hope is, for The New York Times' sake, that they have this thing sourced on background with receipts and whatever else they need because this is a stunning news article to be -- to be -- Willie, to be so thinly sourced. Am I missing something?

[...]

BRZEZINSKI: We're also making calls to The New York Times and hoping to see if we can get someone to come on the air.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, that'd be good. Again, I -- you know what? -- my guess is that The New York Times has a lot more that they did not print. They have a lot more to substantiate this article. I, again, I hope for their sake that they do because right now they're basing it on -- this is just such a thinly sourced story. It is so prejudicial to John McCain on every front.

BRZEZINSKI: It just feels motivated on a number of levels beyond journalism, and I can't believe I'm saying that about The New York Times. I could be wrong. I want to hear more.

[...]

SCARBOROUGH: When you have this explosive of a story -- you know what? The headline is -- when I got the calls from very educated people in the media last night, I picked up the phone, and what did they say?

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.

SCARBOROUGH: “Have you heard?” And I said, “What?” “John McCain.” And I thought immediately, “OK, let's hear the story about an affair or some other scandal.” And they said, “John McCain had an affair.” I said, “Really? With whom?” And then they started telling me the story. “Who says so?” And then you find out that it's disgruntled former employees --

BRZEZINSKI: With no name, at least in one paper.

SCARBOROUGH: -- that won't give their name to The New York Times, the paper that broke this story.

BRZEZINSKI: Right.

SCARBOROUGH: So, yeah, it's very troubling to me.

BRZEZINSKI: And you have two people who have been asked about it, John McCain and Vicki Iseman --

SCARBOROUGH: They denied it.

BRZEZINSKI: -- and both deny it.

SCARBOROUGH: They better have pictures. They better have receipts. They better have -- if they're going to claim here -- and I would say this about any politician -- if they're going to claim that John McCain had an affair and he misused his position as chairman of the Commerce Committee to help multi --

BRZEZINSKI: Because of it --

SCARBOROUGH: -- multinational corporations because of it, they better have more than two unnamed sources who were former disgruntled employees.

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.

SCARBOROUGH: And if I am wrong, I -- you know, we -- seriously, tomorrow we have to get journalism professors on this show.

From the June 4 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

SCARBOROUGH: Hillary Clinton wants to be vice president. Let's talk about the Vanity Fair article very quickly --

BRZEZINSKI: OK.

BUCHANAN: All right.

SCARBOROUGH: -- and all of the garbage that that brought back into it. It looks like that Hillary Clinton could be disqualified because of Bill Clinton --

BARNICLE: Bill Clinton.

SCARBOROUGH: -- right?

BARNICLE: Yeah.

BUCHANAN: There's a lot of garbage in there, but his response to it -- he's really undisciplined really at the end of this thing, the comments he made on the line. As we said, he was sandbagged there with that woman coming up and asking him.

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.

BUCHANAN: But I don't think Obama wants her. I don't think Michelle [Obama] wants her. I do think if they get into August and they find out that he hasn't been able to break into these Hillary voters and this could cost him the election, he may have to look at her.

[...]

BUCHANAN: I think he's handling it exactly right. Look, it's a very tough, troubled time for her, her husband, moving out of this. I think he handled it -- he was extraordinarily gracious to her. Let her work it out. There's no need to interfere with this process. That realization I think is going to come in on her and she's going to realize she can't force herself on the ticket, that would be foolish of her to do it.

SCARBOROUGH: Right.

BUCHANAN: And she's going to make herself available. And I don't think if she's denied the vice presidential nomination, which I would expect, I think she's going to go out and work for this ticket very, very hard.

SCARBOROUGH: But, but --

BUCHANAN: It's in her interest. And it's the right --

BRZEZINSKI: She must want something.

BUCHANAN: -- thing to do and she is a Democrat.

SCARBOROUGH: Tom, though, doesn't the Todd Purdum Vanity Fair article just add another layer of complication for a Clinton vice presidency? When, after all, what Todd --

BROKAW: Yeah, I --

SCARBOROUGH: -- what Todd wrote in that article --

BROKAW: I think without --

SCARBOROUGH: -- is what we've all been hearing for a year and a half.

BROKAW: Listen, without that article, that was going to be a complicating factor. A very senior Obama person said the first conversation you'd have to have would be with her about him, about where his money has come from for the library, the fees that he's earned the last several years, the speaking fees that he would have to forgo if she were to be the vice president, and they -- a number of people on the Obama side see that as a big obstacle for it ever happening.

[...]

SCARBOROUGH: All right, let's talk, though -- as we talk about the vice presidential possibility, and Pat Buchanan asked, why wouldn't he? Do you think the Vanity Fair article about Bill Clinton hurts? Do you think Barack Obama's people are going to say, “You know, we don't care whether it's true or not, there's just too much dirt” --

BRZEZINSKI: Too much stuff.

SCARBOROUGH: -- “with him and her and the presidential library.” Is that a possible disqualifier?

McAULIFFE: Well, first of all, you look at her approval ratings now at the end of this process. She is up in all of these states that we've got to win. You know, the Vanity Fair -- I talked about this yesterday -- you know, it was a hit piece; nobody quoted. I don't like articles -- in fact, I would like legislation. If you're going to say something, you've got to go on the record and say it. Now, they said he talked to 50 people close to Bill Clinton. Most people know the president and I talk every day, we have for years.

SCARBOROUGH: He call you?

McAULIFFE: Never called me. Now, what does that tell you? Also, this story comes out the weekend before the last weekend of voting. I gotta tell you, it is suspect from the start. You know, listen, it's unfortunate, but forget all that. This is about the people. It's about health care, education. Hillary has made the argument. We won in South Dakota last night, when people called this over.

From the February 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: I've been trying to understand this story. I have not put [unintelligible] on either side of this fight, except to read the paper.

Mike Barnicle, who is that used -- La Guardia -- “All I know is what I read in the papers”?

A female lobbyist has been turning up with him at fundraisers. The staff thought it was a romantic relationship. They pushed her away. What do we make of this as journalism?

BARNICLE: Well, God, I hate this story, Chris. I hate it for what it does --

MATTHEWS: I hate it, too.

BARNICLE: I hate for the pro -- what it does to the process of politics. I hate it for what it does to the process of journalism.

The New York Times and no other paper ought to be on the ballot. They are now on the ballot, so to speak, people voting up or down on the Times, what they did today. The New Republic piece, incidentally, which is on the Internet this afternoon, is a terrific piece about this whole thing.

The problem with the piece, Chris, is what you just referenced talking to Frank [Foer, editor of The New Republic]. There are hundreds of smaller papers across the country that get the Times news service. It's a 3,000-word story. They don't have space for that. They're going to cut it down to about 850 words. Guess which 850 words they're going to choose? They're going to pick out the sex stuff and put it up.

And I don't know what it means. I'm reading it, a couple of anonymous sources. If you're a newspaper editor and someone comes to you and says, “Hey, I've got two anonymous sources. They think there's a suspicion of sex between a United States senator and a lobbyist” -- what do you say? You say, “Yeah, please. Come back later.”

That's not front-page stuff. But it's front-page today.

[...]

MATTHEWS: You know, with Gary Hart, Mike -- and I hate to go back over this, but I'm going to do it. Gary Hart, when they nailed him back in, what, '87 on a relationship with that woman, they had a guy who staked out the house for the party that night, was there all night, caught him there. They got a picture of him with her on his lap.

I mean, if you want to nail down that story, I guess that's what you do. But, here, they didn't even try to do that, the Times. They simply had two former staffers -- or they could be Democratic staffers who didn't like the guy because he's a Republican -- we don't know -- saying that they think he had this affair.

BARNICLE: That's what I'm saying. They had a suspicion that there was something going on.

The Gary Hart thing, I mean, Gary, unfortunately, begged the press to follow him. He challenged the press to follow him around. And they followed him around. And they found Donna Rice at the end of the trail.

But this particular story here, Chris, again, the problem is the anonymous sources. It's a huge issue, I mean, in terms of, it's on the front page of The New York Times. It's magnified beyond all proportion.

From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the February 21 edition of MSNBC Live:

SCARBOROUGH: Pat Buchanan: John Weaver, obviously, his credibility is going to be central in this, as well as The New York Times'. Do you have the McCain campaign now starting to sling arrows behind the scenes to reporters, trying to diffuse this story, trying to destroy Weaver's reputation?

BUCHANAN: Yeah. But here's what you do. They've got -- Charlie Black is doing a good job for them, and they've got Bob Bennett out there, Joe. And they, incidentally, are showing a lot more rage and indignation and anger than McCain showed today. And that was one thing that surprised me a bit, that McCain did not seem to be profoundly and deeply offended by this. But there's no question about it. If McCain has told the straight, honest truth about his conversations with his aides and about this woman, then Bill Keller should be out of a job. I mean -- because of what's been done to McCain's reputation by this story. If it's no better sourced than what Chris is saying, the two disgruntled guys saying they thought or believed, and you put that on the front page, you should be out of a job.

From the June 3 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

GEIST: Even as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton seem to be getting more polite toward each other toward the end --

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah, there seems to be a -- yes, mmm, yes.

GEIST: Bill Clinton not on board with that program.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, he didn't get the memo.

GEIST: There was a Vanity Fair piece that just came out, Todd Purdum wrote it.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, yes.

GEIST: Very, very critical of former President Bill Clinton. I'm just going to read a little of it here, and then we'll play you some reaction. Here -- this is from the piece. It says this: “In the end, this is Clinton's most grievous sin, his steady refusal to take grown-up responsibility for the consequences of his own actions. It is Clinton's invariable insistence that his problems are someone else's fault and that questions or criticisms of him, his methods, motives, or means are invariably unfair. That is his unforgivable flaw.”

BRZEZINSKI: No.

GEIST: Now, that's only the beginning. It gets --

BRZEZINSKI: It goes from bad to worse.

GEIST: It gets personal. We have another excerpt here. I think we've got it.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, wow.

GEIST: It says this: “Over the last few years, aides have winced at repeated tabloid reports about Clinton's episodic friendship and occasional dinners out with Belinda Stronach, a twice-divorced billionaire auto-parts heiress and member of the Canadian Parliament 20 years his junior, or at more recent high-end Hollywood dinner-party gossip that Clinton has been seen visiting with the actress Gina Gershon in California. There has been talk of a female friend in Chappaqua, a woman in a bar at a meeting of the Aspen Institute, and a public sighting of a Clinton, [liberal activist and movie and music producer Steve] Bing, and a ravishing entourage in a New York elevator that, a former Clinton aide” --

BRZEZINSKI: OK, enough.

GEIST: -- “told me, led a business leader who saw them to say: I don't know what the guy was doing, it was so clear that it was just no good.” And on, and on, and on.

BRZEZINSKI: I don't care. Bill Clinton.

BUCHANAN: I don't want Todd Purdum doing a profile of me, I'll tell you that.

BRZEZINSKI: Well, Bill's not happy, is he?

GEIST: No, Bill is clearly not happy.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, dear.

GEIST: Now, this audio comes from a reporter --

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, dear.

GEIST: -- from The Huffington Post. And I believe at first didn't identify himself as a reporter.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, well that's not fair.

GEIST: Was on a rope line, and Bill Clinton just launched into a tirade against Todd Purdum, again --

BRZEZINSKI: Did he know he was being recorded?

GEIST: -- the author of that Vanity Fair piece. I don't know if he knew he was being recorded. Let's listen to some of it.

[begin video clip]

FOWLER: What do you think about that hatchet job somebody did on you on Vanity Fair at the end of the race?

CLINTON: Sleazy. He's a really dishonest reporter, and one of our guys talked to him. [unintelligible] But I haven't read it. But the guy told me there's five or six just blatant lies in there. But he's a real slimy guy.

FOWLER: Yeah, it's all over cable news.

CLINTON: It's totally slimy. Just blow it off.

FOWLER: But he's married to Dee Dee Myers?

CLINTON: Yeah, but he -- that's all right. He's still a scumbag.

[end video clip]

BRZEZINSKI: Oh.

GEIST: You heard the word “scumbag” in there. “Sleazy,” “dishonest,” “slimy.” Bill Clinton talking about Todd Purdum. Now, I don't know if you could hear the --

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, boy.

GEIST: -- woman from HuffPost, but Todd Purdum, of course, married to Clinton's former press secretary.

BARNICLE: Did the reporter -- did she ever identify herself?

BRZEZINSKI: See, that's what we're -- we're hearing she didn't. And I don't think that's fair.

BARNICLE: That bothers me.

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.

BARNICLE: That bothers me. I mean, you know, the president of the -- former president of the United States, he should always be aware, I suppose, that he's always on. But still, that's a sandbagging job there.

BRZEZINSKI: A little bit, a little bit.

GEIST: His larger point, though, if you listen further to Bill Clinton, was that this was part of the orchestrated media campaign against Hillary Clinton, this Vanity Fair piece.

BARNICLE: When you read the entire piece, when you read Todd's entire piece, I think the most salient aspect of the piece is how he points out and quotes several close associates of former President Clinton as saying his political prowess today, as compared to when he was in office, 1992, 1996 -- the last time he ran was in 1996 -- the difference between the cultures, media cultures is night and day.

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.

BARNICLE: And he has just lost a step, in terms of --

BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. Little bit out of --

BUCHANAN: He's very un -- he's undisciplined, I mean, in every way you can imagine. And I think it's hurtful, and frankly, this could be hurtful for her chance to be the vice presidential nominee.

BRZEZINSKI: Ah. You bring up a good point.