Many times in the last few years after reading the news, I often wonder why the media just can’t stick to the facts by using the basic who, what, when, where, how and why while gathering information for a story. They seem to believe that sensationalizing a story with unnamed sources and possible sexual encounters sells papers or brings up the ratings on the local news.

I had these thoughts a lot in 2006 when many in the Montana media went with stories that were credited to unnamed sources and sources close to the investigation. Many of their stories during the election season of 2006 were not based on any facts, but based on what the opponent was spewing out in press releases. The Montana media helped Jon Tester win a seat in the U.S. Senate.

After that, I started to really dislike the way the media works in this country. I still dislike them today, and I could do a better job at reporting the news than 80% of them (100% in Montana). We are lucky to have a few right and left bloggers in Montana who do a much better job in reporting the facts about a story than most newspapers.

Today, it seems the New York Times could use a little basic Journalism 101 lesson with their recent story about John McCain. I highly doubt any of the Montana reporters from 2006 could have piled on the sleaze and unsubstantiated statements any better.

Of course, the reporters wanted the readers to read into the story that John McCain was having sexual relations with a lobbyist, and that he was not as ethical as he claims. Maybe he’s not, but give the readers some facts and names of those accusing him of this unethical behavior. That’s the only ethical way of reporting a story.

In the first few paragraphs of the “Get McCain” story, there are several questionable accusations which do not have sources like:

“…waves of anxiety swept through his small circle of advisers.” Who are these advisors? Could you possibly give your readers the names of these advisors?

“…some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access…”

Do any of these top advisors have names? Who are these staff members? Could they go on the record and substantiate the statement?

“…the former campaign associates said, some aides feared for a time that attention would fall on her involvement.”

Do these former campaign associates have names? How about the aides? Were they fired and, if so, do they want to harm their former boss?

An editor for the New York Times could have said, “Get me a credible source for these accusations who will go on the record, or put your story in the trash bin.” But the editor didn’t. That’s why we have such yellow journalism these days.

Robert Bennett, a Democrat, who is a well-known Washington, D.C. attorney (he was Bill Clinton’s attorney and now McCain’s) was on several shows in the last few days regarding his new book, “In The Ring, the Trials of a Washington Lawyer.” Bennett made some interesting observations last night on Hannity and Colmes. He said, “…a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. And that’s kind of what a story like this is.”

Hannity quoted from Bennett’s book saying, “…there’s a pack mentality. They pile on like wolves chasing a wounded deer. Bringing down a big name is a blood sport in Washington.”

In 2006, it was the sport of choice for many journalists. It appears we will be seeing the same game played out in 2008.