When Anthony D. Weiner announced his candidacy for mayor of New York City recently - and rather oddly, in a video that surfaced online late at night and then disappeared - it was good to see the reporter David Halbfinger take a hard look at the video's assertions, fact-checking them aggressively and in real time.
For example, Mr. Halbfinger wrote about the candidate's claim of a health care overhaul, “Mr. Weiner's go-it-alone style in Congress â€" and his razor-sharp verbal bite â€" earned him hours of television airtime and a national following among liberals, but little else to show for it.â€
The editorial writer Lawrence Downes also offered an incisive view in the “Taking Note†blog. “The half-life of disgrace seems to be getting shorter,†he wrote. “The new Anthony Weiner looks a lot like the old: full of bluster, full of ideas, full of himself.â€
And the reporter Michael Barbaro wrote an analytical piece soon after, raising questions and describing the strange quality of the campaign thus far. With poll numbers showing “a deep distaste for his candidacy,†Mr. Weiner “remained holed up in his apartment†after his announcement. Mr. Barbaro wrote, “His campaign seemed determined that the warm images from the video be the ones that dominated the day.â€
This kind of hard-nosed skepticism has sometimes been in short supply in recent weeks when it comes to the former congressman, who resigned in June 2011 after an online sex scandal, and in his run for New York City's top office.
It all began with a cover story in The New York Times Magazine on April 14. The cover image, combined with the headline's first-name intimacy, gave it something of a Brangelina vibe: “Huma and Anthony: The Private Life of a Former Power Couple.†Mr. Weiner's wife is Huma Abedin, a longtime top aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton and close friend of the Clinton family.
Joan G. Hauser, a reader, was one of many who objected. “I found the Sunday piece offensive because it was a blatant ‘testing of the water' for the benefit of Weiner.†Notably, the story was written not by one of The Times's political reporters but by a Vogue contributing editor.
Joseph Brennan of Somers, N.Y., wrote to me:
I am surprised and disappointed at the recent, generally positive, articles that have appeared about Anthony Weiner and his apparent attempt to re-establish himself as a significant political figure. Based on the descriptions in New York Times articles of his activities and influence I see no basis for the conclusion. Indeed, considering the lack of similar coverage in other reputable publications I can't escape the conclusion that The Times is single-handedly engineering his comeback.
I asked Hugo Lindgren, the editor of The Times Magazine, about the impression, by some readers, that the cover story was too easy on its subjects - a sweet stop on Mr. Weiner's redemption tour - and about the choice of its author.
He responded that, in retrospect, he did not believe the story was too soft.
We were very clear with our readers about the reason that Weiner and Abedin were cooperating with us, and our primary goal was to get them to speak as unguardedly as possible about the Twitter episode and its effect on them personally and professionally. We think we accomplished that. At the time, Weiner had not announced his run for mayor. Now that he has, the conversation has moved on to whether he is fit for the office, and our colleagues in the newsroom have done an excellent job of covering that.
I'd like to make one additional point about the writer of the story, Jonathan Van Meter. Jonathan is a highly respected magazine journalist who has written political profiles for Vogue and New York Magazine, and though he was acquainted with Abedin because he had written about the Clintons, he was not “cozy†with her or Weiner.
Whatever one thinks of the magazine cover story â€" some, no doubt, simply enjoyed it as a juicy read â€" the tone of The Times's coverage of Mr. Weiner has toughened up. That's a welcome development.
