I think Bill Keller's note to readers today about his paper's article on McCain represents surrender from the editor:

Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction (including more than 2,400 reader comments posted on our Web site). I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.

And, frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story. Perhaps here, at the outset of this conversation, is a good point to state as clearly as possible our purpose in publishing. [snip]

The point of this "Long Run" installment was that, according to people who know him well, this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation. The story cites several examples, and quotes friends and admirers talking of this apparent contradiction in his character. That is why some members of his staff were so alarmed by the appearance of his relationship with Ms. Iseman. And that, it seemed (and still seems) to us, was something our readers would want to know about a man who aspires to be president.

Clearly, many of you did not agree.

This is actually quite a significant concession, as papers like the Times aren't known to answer criticisms beyond corrections. So unless the Times has further evidence of infidelity, this is a closed case.

But why would the vaunted Times cave on this particular piece? One explanation is that it received little to no support from the rest of the mainstream media, which focused on the controversy of publishing the article more than the controversy in the article. Quite a change from four years ago when the MSM rallied to CBS and Dan Rather over the faked national guard memos (and in many cases still does). Perhaps Keller et al. expected the same circling of wagons over this piece. But not even liberal bloggers, who are apt to stick their necks out for the mainstream media when it comes under conservative attack, were willing to defend this one.

Over at the L.A. Times' political blog, The Ticket, Andrew Malcolm sheds some light on the MSM's abandoning of the Times:

But one interesting aspect of this combined political and professional controversy went widely unnoticed. The Boston Globe, which is wholly owned by the New York Times, chose not to publish the article produced by its parent company's reporters.

Instead, the Globe published a version of the same story written by the competing Washington Post staff. That version focused almost exclusively on the pervasive presence of lobbyists in McCain's campaign and did not mention the sexual relationship that the Times article hinted at but did not describe or document and which the senator and lobbyist have denied.

On Thursday the Globe's website, Boston.com, did provide a link to the Times story on the Times' website. But such a stark editorial decision by a major newspaper raises suspicions that even the Globe's editors, New York Times Co. employees all, had their own concerns about the content of their parent company's story.

Rainey asked the Globe's editor, Martin Baron, about that decision. His eloquent reply: "No comment."

When journalists hear such rhetorical avoidance from public figures and politicians, they usually take it as confirmation of their suspicions.

As one colleague told Malcolm, "I wouldn't put my name on it."