Clark Hoyt, the New York Times Ombudsman, rips into his paper for its controversial, sexually charged “profile” on John McCain. Hoyt states that despite the NYT’s lack of evidence, the story editors ran with the article in its innuedo-laden state in what appears to be an attempt to discredit McCain.

A newspaper cannot begin a story about the all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee with the suggestion of an extramarital affair with an attractive lobbyist 31 years his junior and expect readers to focus on anything other than what most of them did. And if a newspaper is going to suggest an improper sexual affair, whether editors think that is the central point or not, it owes readers more proof than The Times was able to provide.

Hoyt’s asserts that not only did the paper not have enbough evidence to run the story, but its very placement in the bio is shockingly out of place because it lacks pertinence to the main idea of the story. Its very easy to conclude that the NYT was simply out to slander the leading Republican candidate.

Check out the whole thing here.

Thanks Clark.