LA: If you’re talking about the cancer specifically, it depends on the state of understanding and knowledge about how melanomas behave. You have to point out as much of the facts and information as you can in that particular situation on deadline, and that’s why [in the Times article] I pointed out the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology report questioning whether [McCain’s melanoma from 2000] was a metastasis and not a primary [tumor growth], which would change the classification. And the McCain people, when I asked for clarification of this and asked to talk to the doctors afterward—which they’d told us they would allow and then didn’t—they just issued some statement from the Mayo Clinic [which operated on melanoma] saying they stood by their diagnosis. So there’s no way to keep checking; that closes off an avenue of communication. In our case, we had no way of specifically communicating with his doctors to clarify any point that they wanted to clarify or to clarify any of the points that we wanted to clarify. So we had to go by what was disclosed by the pool of reporters and the limited questioning that occurred in the teleconference. But there’s another aspect of this, too—why don’t candidates themselves raise the question about their opponents health? When that comes up, it should be covered. In 1996, Bob Dole brought up the fact that Clinton hadn’t disclosed his medical information and then there was whole issue about Clinton’s health.

If you'd like to get email from CJR writers and editors, add your email address to our newsletter roll and we'll be in touch.

Curtis Brainard is the editor of The Observatory, CJR's online critique of science and environment reporting. Follow him on Twitter @cbrainard.