The New York Times writes about reaction to its page-one piece Thursday which alleged in part that John McCain’s aides were "convinced" he was having an affair with a lobbyist during the 2000 presidential campaign.

It placed the second-day story on page A20 – the last of its three insided “The 2008 Campaign” pages -- with a boxed A1 reference on the fold. Questions about proportionality are also raised by the lack of any additional reporting about the bombshell affair allegation, which caused a substantial reaction from media critics and thousands of New York Times’ readers.

The second-day article refers to the sexy sex angle once and only obliquely, to report that McCain flatly denied it in a televised news conference he held with his wife. In boilerplate characterizing the original article the Times says in gentler terms that lobbyist Vicki Iseman’s “recurring appearances” with McCain had “alarmed” some top advisers.

“The couple were responding to an article on Thursday that said Ms. Iseman’s recurring appearances in 1999 at fund-raisers, in Mr. McCain’s office and at campaign events had alarmed some of his top advisers, prompting several to warn him that his association with her could threaten his reputation as a scourge of special interests.

The McCains were, in fact, responding to a question, put in play by the Times, about whether the senator had cheated on his wife with a much younger female telecommunications lobbyist who was doing business with his Senate oversight committee.

Friday’s wording seems to significantly recast both the proffered fact and dramatic tone of the original characterization:

“A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.”

This appears to be more than just a good writer’s attempt to say the same thing with fresh prose. A central point has simply been removed. In the original, the greatest insinuated fear is that McCain was having an affair – indisputably a conflict of interest (among other things). In the re-characterization, it is merely that Iseman’s ubiquity gave the appearance of a conflict of interest.

How do some other keepers of standards see this? Columbia Journalism Review editor Mike Hoyt says he believes the Times had enough to run the original story, but a CJR article asks “Five Questions,” including: “Does the Times have information that corroborates its suggestion of an affair, but that it didn’t publish in (the original article)?”

American Journalism Review editor and senior vice president Rem Rieder also thinks the Times made the right call, and casts the romance angle in a more limited light:

“ … the Times doesn't assert that McCain and telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman had an affair. What it does say is that his top associates were very concerned about his close relationship with someone lobbying about issues before his committee, feared it may have become romantic and actually staged an intervention to break it up.”

I’m not sure that hair can be split: reporting that a close colleague of a married, accountable figure fears he is having an affair without providing objective evidence that would also convince the average reader this is a reasonable conclusion is exactly what the criticism of the Times is all about. (For that matter, the Times’ wording -- “convinced the relationship had become romantic” -- is much harder that Rieder’s characterization -- “feared it may have become romantic”, but no point going too far down that road).

But either way, would not something akin to the second-day characterization – concerns about the appearance of closeness between McCain and a lobbyist, shorn of any reference to an affair – have sufficiently served the purpose of the article: to juxtapose McCain’s words and deeds to paint a picture which may seem to cast doubt on his dedication to a core personal ethical code?

Reaction from competitive media is a little tougher to gauge, but the New York Times-owned Boston Globe didn’t run the Times story in favor of a Washington Post version which did not have the romance angle.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer also passed on publishing the Times story because, as Managing Editor James McCumber explains in a blog piece, he thought it had serious flaws that went beyond the thinly-sourced allegation of an affair.

The article “did not convincingly make the case that McCain either had an affair with a lobbyist, or was improperly influenced by her,” McCumber wrote, and evidence supporting the central theme -- that McCain had been unduly influenced by lobbyists -- was itself “pretty thin beer,” he said.

The Times itself has received more than 2,000 comments, many of which it says criticize its handling of the article.

Among them are this comment, from a self-described conservative Republican “who had counted the New York Times as a reliable source of daily news …”

“There's nothing wrong with investigative reporting, especially on presidential candidates, but it doesn't seem that this investigation produced anything substantive. So why publish something that could only detract from the reputation of public servant? I sincerely hope the reason is more benign them it seems.”

But many also find no fault with the Times’ reporting and accept the article’s veracity:

“NYT - you have every right. Politicians who want to be president, in bed with lobbyists, is huge. Don't let them shoot the messenger!”

The Times is inviting questions to editors and reporters who worked on the article at askthetimes@nytimes.com.