There was a great scene in All the President’s Men that tells you a lot about good journalism.

Woodward and Bernstein, the aggressive young Washington Post reporters investigating Watergate, look on as their editor gives the newsroom’s big boss, Ben Bradlee, a copy of their latest White House expose. The three assume Bradlee will applaud them. “We got a present for you,” the editor tells Bradlee. “Above the fold on page one for sure.”

Bradlee starts to read. Then he starts to scowl. Finally, he gives his verdict.

“You haven’t got it.”

The reporters, stunned, start to argue, but Bradlee cuts them off.

“Not good enough,” he says. As he walks away, he adds, “Get some harder information next time.”

I’m thinking of that scene as I read the now famous New York Times “expose” on John McCain.

The story was released Wednesday night and implied that McCain had a romantic relationship with a lobbyist whose clients the senator helped out.

McCain denied any affair. The lobbyist denied it too.

That’s pretty standard, so I figured it’s just what the high-and-mighty do when caught.

Then I sat down to read the story.

I kept waiting for some proof.

I’m still waiting.

The story’s central premise is that McCain pushed legislation for the clients of a female telecommunications lobbyist he was “close” to. The story used other code, like “inappropriate relationship.” Everyone knows that means “sleeping with.” If you’re going to imply that in a newspaper about a candidate for president, you’d better back it up.

But the only evidence is two unnamed ex-McCain “associates” who were uncomfortable with the woman being around.

As for the favors to her telecom clients, the story itself says McCain actually opposed many of their initiatives. He did back others, too, but McCain points out those were things he supported anyway.

There were other questionable things about the story.

For starters, this alleged relationship happened eight years ago. Not exactly breaking news.

Then there was the oddest thing: Only a third of this long story was about the supposed improper relationship. The majority of it was an historical recitation of how McCain had survived a past ethical scandal almost 20 years ago when he helped supporters who later got embroiled in the savings-and-loan mess — a crisis he details in his own memoir. I guess the Times’ point was that McCain vowed afterward to be above reproach, but the alleged relationship with the lobbyist showed otherwise.

There’s a quote from this controversy that’s on my mind right now, and it doesn’t come from the Times story. It comes from a comment made about it Thursday morning by a listener who called a local talk-radio show.

“This is why people don’t read newspapers anymore,” he said.

It seems a common sentiment. I don’t think journalists realize how justifiably angry readers get when a story makes major charges without proof. It’s why many see reporters as troublemakers who like rolling hand grenades at society’s doers to win ourselves acclaim.

In our defense, we play a critical role watch dogging public officials.

But I’m going to be honest here. On some occasions, we get so hell-bent on playing “gotcha” that we go overboard.

I once interviewed a predecessor of Barack Obama — Adlai Stevenson III, who served two terms as U.S. senator from Illinois. I asked why he chose not to pursue a third term. There were many reasons, but one, he said, was that Washington reporters were so obsessed with catching pols doing something wrong that it was hard to discuss real issues in the media.

And there was a notable moment at the 1964 Republican Convention when former President Dwight Eisenhower criticized the “divisive efforts” of “sensation-seeking columnists and commentators.” It so struck a nerve that thousands of delegates leapt to their feet shaking fists at reporters’ booths.

What we journalists miss as we sit in the bleachers occasionally throwing stones at those in the arena is that people often hate us for it.

Fine, we’re not here to be popular. But we are here to be right, our facts airtight, especially when the stakes are high. We’re also here to be fair.

If the Times had solid proof that McCain pushed legislation for the clients of a paramour, OK, that’s a story.

I didn’t see that proof.

The paper’s editor had a chance to scowl at his reporters and say, “You don’t have it.”

He doesn’t seem to regret missing that chance.

He should.

mpatinkin@projo.com