More than a decade ago when I was a reporter for the Lompoc Record I had a great story drop into my lap. A female student (she was 18) at one of the area high schools (there are two) had received work-study credit for stripping. I'm not talking about removing the bark from wood, I'm talking about taking her clothes off.

I had photocopies of her report cards (don't ask me how I got these) showing that she was on work study, detailed accounts from her ex-boyfriend/driver (she went to her customers' homes, this wasn't a business establishment) on who her employer was and where he drove her and when. I also had a little bit of confirmation from the school principal who, when I inquired about the student, would only say that there were some gaps in the vetting of one person hiring work study students. I asked if this gap was due to the fact that a comma, two letters and a period had been left off this particular employer form. The principal smiled and said yes.

Why was that significant? Well, I knew that the employer was a ", Jr." and the reason that the school hadn't double-checked the employer was that Jr.'s father was the head of the local branch of the NAACP.

Of course, the kicker was that this student was also one of the nominees for homecoming queen.

This story never appeared in the Lompoc Record. Why?

Because the key document, the application for work study listing this student's name and that of her employer, was one I couldn't get my hands on. With all the stuff I had, it still wasn't enough to get published.

I told you that story so I could point out that the Lompoc Record has higher journalistic standards than The New York Times.

This hit piece on John McCain is so thinly sourced and full of innuendo that I wouldn't publish it in the local weekly reader.

In interviews, the two former associates said they joined in a series of confrontations with Mr. McCain, warning him that he was risking his campaign and career. Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others.

This is the key paragraph, and it's buried more than half way through the story. What was the "inappropriate" behavior exactly? Was it the mere appearance of impropriety? Why are these two former McCain advisers given anonymity? They're "disillusioned," -- are they disgruntled former workers?

The article is all innuendo (and a brief review of the Keating Five scandal) and no substance. If this is all the Times can come up with, then McCain should be nominated for sainthood right away.