All sorts of folks are atwitter about the New York Times' latest editorial decision. Last week, they published a piece by Senator Barack Obama featuring his plan to end the war in Iraq. Senator John McCain submitted his own piece this week, and it was rejected. However, he was given a pat on the head and asked to try again.
Hot Air got the text of the rejection note, and it's quite enlightening.
Here is the key paragraph, where Mr. Shipley -- a former Bill Clinton speechwriter and the current Op-Ed Editor for the New York Times -- says what sorts of changes would need to be made for Senator McCain's essay:
It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.(emphasis added)
One key point of John McCain's Iraq policy is NO TIMETABLES. As I understand it, he's more interested in winning the war than studying a calendar.
So, in essence, the New York Times says they won't publish John McCain's response to Barack Obama's essay unless McCain tosses aside the key point of his entire policy.
I'm tempted to be outraged at this incident, but then I remember -- it's only the New York Times.
It's not like it's over something that really matters any more.
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Media
Comments (30)
This is indeed very wrong, ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Paul Hooson | July 21, 2008 6:57 PM | Score: 17 (21 votes cast)
This is indeed very wrong, no major media outlet should ever reject anything that is directed submitted by a major presidential candidate. I cannot support this decision of the NYT on any level.
1. Posted by Paul Hooson | July 21, 2008 6:57 PM |
Score: 17 (21 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 18:57
2. Posted by Peter F. | July 21, 2008 7:03 PM | Score: 13 (17 votes cast)
Geezus, the audacity to dictate and demand the content of a candidate's position is arrogant beyond reproach. If McCain actually worked for the NYT as a reporter, then OK, fine, dictate away. Otherwise, if I'm McCain, it's a hearty "f*** you and your paper, Shipley."
Dear Times, your patently bias skirt is showing....
2. Posted by Peter F. | July 21, 2008 7:03 PM |
Score: 13 (17 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 19:03
3. Posted by jp2 | July 21, 2008 7:17 PM | Score: -32 (36 votes cast)
Wow! A newspaper actually demanding substance from a candidate? A newspaper not printing a shoddy attack piece?
Cheers.
3. Posted by jp2 | July 21, 2008 7:17 PM |
Score: -32 (36 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 19:17
4. Posted by HughS | July 21, 2008 7:29 PM | Score: 18 (24 votes cast)
A shoddy attack piece it is not; a cutting critique of Obama's errors on Iraq strategy it is. Hence the NYT just steps further away from the pretense of objective news reporting and outs itself as a mouthpiece of the Obama campaign. Nothing new here.
4. Posted by HughS | July 21, 2008 7:29 PM |
Score: 18 (24 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 19:29
5. Posted by hyperbolist | July 21, 2008 7:29 PM | Score: -14 (30 votes cast)
Paul, that is a pretty silly position to take. What if Ralph Nader faxed them a photocopy of his ass?
They can and should apply some sort of standard, as they don't work for either candidate. Whether McCain's editorial was sufficiently lacking is a separate question, but your claim, that anything he submits should automatically get published, is wrong at face value.
5. Posted by hyperbolist | July 21, 2008 7:29 PM |
Score: -14 (30 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 19:29
6. Posted by Wayne | July 21, 2008 7:44 PM | Score: 17 (21 votes cast)
In the end there wasn't that much difference in the amount of substance between Obama and McCain's pieces. Both attack the other side and both gave their opinion of the status of the situation and some of what needs to be done. The big difference is McCain's piece was refused by the NYT because of the NYT's bias.
6. Posted by Wayne | July 21, 2008 7:44 PM |
Score: 17 (21 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 19:44
7. Posted by Cadrys![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| July 21, 2008 7:44 PM | Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
...so what is the NYT position on the Fairness Doctrine again?
7. Posted by Cadrys![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://wizbangblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
| July 21, 2008 7:44 PM |
Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 19:44
8. Posted by Peter F. | July 21, 2008 7:46 PM | Score: 5 (13 votes cast)
A newspaper not printing a shoddy attack piece?
And how do YOU know McCain's piece was such? Or are you just making another stupid, stereotyping assumption about Republicans....
8. Posted by Peter F. | July 21, 2008 7:46 PM |
Score: 5 (13 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 19:46
9. Posted by nehemiah | July 21, 2008 7:47 PM | Score: 17 (21 votes cast)
McCain's purpose is to communicate to the readers of the New York Times. He is not submitting an essay to be graded by Shipley. If McCain is talking out of his ass and not defining victory and not giving clear plans, then that helps the readers decide for or against McCain. Let the readers decide if the piece is a attack piece or a piece of shit or whatever, but let the readers decide.
By the way, if McCain did fax them a copy of his ass, I think the Times would have run it gladly, with the implication that McCain is not serious enough to be trusted. Basically, any marginally acceptable excuse to make McCain look bad or making Obama look good -- that is the criteria that determines news that's fit to print.
9. Posted by nehemiah | July 21, 2008 7:47 PM |
Score: 17 (21 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 19:47
10. Posted by Peter F. | July 21, 2008 7:51 PM | Score: 14 (16 votes cast)
Never mind, jp2. I retract my statement. Only to revise it as such:
"I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war--only of ending it...(McCain wrote)
That's a statement of fact, not an attack.
10. Posted by Peter F. | July 21, 2008 7:51 PM |
Score: 14 (16 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 19:51
11. Posted by Stephen Macklin | July 21, 2008 8:12 PM | Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
Don't believe the media is pulling for Obama? CHeck out the photo from the WABC Chicago:
http://nomayo.mu.nu/media_bias_what_media_bias
11. Posted by Stephen Macklin | July 21, 2008 8:12 PM |
Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 20:12
12. Posted by valwayne | July 21, 2008 8:27 PM | Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
The NYT signed on as Obama's PR outlet during the primaries against Hillary. Did anybody really think that they would be shy about their support for Obama and opposition to his general election oponent. Not likely. However, their refusal was great for McCain. Nobody reads or take the NYT seriously anymore. Their refusal will insure more people will read McCain's editorial than if the NYT had put it on their front page, like they do most of their editorial support for Obama.
12. Posted by valwayne | July 21, 2008 8:27 PM |
Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 20:27
13. Posted by tyree | July 21, 2008 9:09 PM | Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
"-- it's only the New York Times.
It's not like it's over something that really matters any more."
Bears repeating
13. Posted by tyree | July 21, 2008 9:09 PM |
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 21:09
14. Posted by JLawson | July 21, 2008 9:20 PM | Score: 8 (12 votes cast)
Way things are going with their subscription levels, they're gonna NEED Obama in the White House to funnel 'em money to keep going.
Perhaps they should just change their name from the "New York Times" to "Pravda"?
14. Posted by JLawson | July 21, 2008 9:20 PM |
Score: 8 (12 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 21:20
15. Posted by Paul Hooson | July 21, 2008 9:36 PM | Score: 10 (14 votes cast)
Hyperbolist, Ralph Nader is neither a major candidate for president or likely to be elected president ever. But either of the two major candidates will become president, so anything they directly submit to a major newspaper should be published. I know CNN or other electronic media would never decline the major candidates an opportunity to speak out on issues as their voice represents nearly even millions of voters. The NYT decision is antidemocracy on so many levels.
15. Posted by Paul Hooson | July 21, 2008 9:36 PM |
Score: 10 (14 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 21:36
16. Posted by Clyde Nugget | July 21, 2008 9:44 PM | Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
Now that is what is called censoring news. Thought the communist were the ones who did that, but, hey, I forgot about the New York Times. Perhaps they took their training in Moscow.
16. Posted by Clyde Nugget | July 21, 2008 9:44 PM |
Score: 11 (15 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 21:44
17. Posted by DSkinner | July 21, 2008 9:50 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Didn't the NYT endorse McCain for the Republican nomination and Hillary for the Democrat nomination? People knew they would support the Democrat, whomever it was, in the general. However, shouldn't they like McCain at least a little. More than they way they are treating him now.
17. Posted by DSkinner | July 21, 2008 9:50 PM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 21:50
18. Posted by JLawson | July 21, 2008 10:03 PM | Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
I'd think they'd at least be willing to post policy statements he sends them, DSkinner...
Paul Hooson - we might not agree in our political viewpoints - but I agree with you 100% on this. It worries me greatly to see the NYTimes pulling this. Voters need more information, ACCURATE information on the candidates - not puff pieces for the preferred candidate and the back of their hand to the other.
18. Posted by JLawson | July 21, 2008 10:03 PM |
Score: 7 (11 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 22:03
19. Posted by bigdoglv | July 21, 2008 10:10 PM | Score: 8 (12 votes cast)
By not printing it, the NYT has created such a fuss that it is now published everywhere and everyone will read it. If they published it, no one but their small readership would have read it. Idiots!
19. Posted by bigdoglv | July 21, 2008 10:10 PM |
Score: 8 (12 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 22:10
20. Posted by Clay | July 21, 2008 11:24 PM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
it is now published everywhere and everyone will read it.
I figure the NYT knew the editorial was going to get out anyhow, without having to see it violate the Lady's hallowed folds. I mean, they aren't stupid. Right?
Well...right?
20. Posted by Clay | July 21, 2008 11:24 PM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 23:24
21. Posted by jpm100 | July 21, 2008 11:52 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
How's the campaign finance reform turning out for you now John?
21. Posted by jpm100 | July 21, 2008 11:52 PM |
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
Posted on July 21, 2008 23:52
22. Posted by Tom Blogical | July 22, 2008 12:46 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
I'm betting if Obama would've been the one rejected by the NYT, the entire world would know about it. REM's "It's The End Of The World As We Know It" would certainly be appropriate.
Speaking of biased media dinosaurs, there's something about Mary that Hollywood likes. Mapes, that is.
Make sure you keep a copy of that book, Jay Tea. It might actually be worth something; unless the movie tanks, too.
22. Posted by Tom Blogical | July 22, 2008 12:46 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on July 22, 2008 00:46
23. Posted by Clay | July 22, 2008 1:15 AM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
unless the movie tanks, too.
Is there a doubt?
23. Posted by Clay | July 22, 2008 1:15 AM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on July 22, 2008 01:15
24. Posted by Tom Blogical | July 22, 2008 1:24 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
"Is there a doubt?"
I would certainly hope it isn't successful, but there are a lot of idiots like Mapes who actually believe the story was based on factual information.
24. Posted by Tom Blogical | July 22, 2008 1:24 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on July 22, 2008 01:24
25. Posted by Clay | July 22, 2008 1:39 AM | Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
the story was based on factual information
Well. Maybe the documents were fake. But, they were accurate.
/sarc off/
25. Posted by Clay | July 22, 2008 1:39 AM |
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
Posted on July 22, 2008 01:39
26. Posted by Oyster | July 22, 2008 9:32 AM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
In the comment section of Jempty's piece, No Way to Treat a Wounded Veteran, in which this was first brought up, Matt Lutze said this: "David Shipley's responsibility is to provide high-quality balance and maintain the ethos/reputation of the paper. Mr. McCain's Op-Ed was of a tabloid-opinion quality, the publishing of which would have broken Mr. Shipley's second herein defined responsibility."
I spit coffee again. This is getting to be a problem here for me.
26. Posted by Oyster | July 22, 2008 9:32 AM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on July 22, 2008 09:32
27. Posted by Clay | July 22, 2008 9:40 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
@#26
Oh hell. Now that is funny.
27. Posted by Clay | July 22, 2008 9:40 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on July 22, 2008 09:40
28. Posted by sobe eaton | July 22, 2008 1:53 PM | Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
What a bunch of whiners!
28. Posted by sobe eaton | July 22, 2008 1:53 PM |
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on July 22, 2008 13:53
29. Posted by Howard | July 22, 2008 1:57 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
THE FOURTH ESTATE IS STARTING RESEMBLE THE THIRD REICH.
Like Joseph Goebbels, American main stream media has replaced objectivity, integrity, and free choice with one sided reporting, that reflects their bias for Barack Obama. The American Press used to be the last bastion of truth. When special interests got out of hand, the press came to the rescue and exposed them to the public. Now, the press is the special interest with their own agenda.
29. Posted by Howard | July 22, 2008 1:57 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on July 22, 2008 13:57
30. Posted by John S | July 22, 2008 7:13 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory..."
The Iraq War ended months ago. We won. Seems the Times is trying to keep that a secret until after November.
30. Posted by John S | July 22, 2008 7:13 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on July 22, 2008 19:13