Jul 21 2008
Why I love The New York Times
John McCain
Last week The New York Times published an op-ed column written by Barack Obama in which he laid out his plan for Iraq. This week the paper has rejected a column written by Johnny McCain in response to Senator Obama’s column. (Read Mr. McCain’s column here.) The reason given is that the McCain column contains no new ideas nor does it any way articulate what Mr. McCain’s plans are for the ill-begotten war in Iraq. All it does is claim that Senator Obama’s ideas and plans are wrong. (The newspaper of record has never, to my knowledge, promised that any column written by any candidate, no matter how trivial and inconsequential, would be published.)
Of course, the right wingers are all up in arms, once again claiming they are the victims of the so-called “liberal” media. What they fail to mention is that The New York Times has offered to publish Johnny McCain’s article, but only if he will rewrite it so it contains some substance. The McCain people have, of course, refused this offer. Substance is not what the McCain campaign is about. All they care to do is crow on about how the old codger is a hero because he spent five years sitting in a prisoner of war camp four decades ago and complain about how everybody else is wrong about everything while claiming that Senior Citizen McCain is the only person in the entire world to ever get anything right.
Now they’ve even got an ad out blaming Barack Obama for high gasoline prices!
Typical. Rather than telling you how Johnny McCain plans to solve our energy crisis and bring gas prices down, they tell you that it is all Senator Obama’s fault we have a crisis and prices are high. The next thing you know they will be blaming him for hurricanes (there is one heading for the Texas coast right now), floods and wildfires.
Our Republicans are a laugh a minute, aren’t they?
Gen. David Petraeus flies with Sens. Barack Obama and Chuck Hagel from Baghdad International Airport to the International Zone. (Photo credit: SSG Lorie Jewell, US Army)
Sen. Barack Obama, left, shakes hands with the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad, Iraq, Monday, July 21, 2008. (Photo: AP Photo/Iraqi Government)
(That’s gotta burn!)
P.S. Remember a few months ago when Senator Obama talked about bitter people who cling to guns, religion and antipathy? Well… I found them. (That’s some really funny stuff right there that is.)
Update: “New York Times To McCain: Cut The Crap.”
Also see: “The Times and the McCain Op-Ed.”
8 Responses to “Why I love The New York Times”
Typical liberal censorship. Since when does any media outlet get to have editorial control of an Op-Ed piece?
Of course you favor it, along with other PC free speech limitations. Free speech for thee, but not for me.
“If there is a “growing consensus” to withdraw American troops, that consensus only exists because the American people now recognize that victory is at hand and our presence will not be required in Iraq for much longer. But Barack Obama has always supported withdrawing troops, regardless of the consequences for Iraq, the region, and American national security. At some point, we will be 16 months away from leaving Iraq, and then Obama will be claiming he was right all along. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
The actions of the New York Times may be justified according to their stated policies, but they certainly drive a stake into the heart of Nancy Pelosi’s attempt to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine. Unless, of course, the Fairness Doctrine is simply a code word for eliminate-right-wing-talk-radio. Still, a media outlet that has editorialized in favor of Pelosi’s Fairness Doctrine ought to at least pay lip service to it!
@Sailor in the Desert :
Uh, since media outlets in the United States are privately owned businesses and not government-run propaganda machines. What country do you live in?
Really, my friend, it may behoove you to put your mind in gear before engaging your fingers. Try it sometime. (Really!)
(Ditto you other two fellows, with all due respect. Americaneocon (is that you, Donald?): ever try thinking for yourself? Chris: I was going to mention that “Fairness Doctrine” crap that y’all are always carping on about, but I didn’t want to embarrass you. Really, guys… this the best you got? I’m telling you… a laugh a minute!)
My thanks to each of your for dropping by.
You may be surprised, but I believe they have a right to not publish it. The choice to not publish it has only given them bad publicity – and all publicity is not necessarily good publicity – and advanced the notion of the NYT’s bias.
Yes, they’ve published his editorials before. Yes, they endorsed him for Republican candidate. Vetting normal op-ed pieces is perfectly fine. When the opinions come from a Presidential candidate, it is a different matter. I don’t want the newspaper telling a candidate to edit their opinions. Let the candidates, on both sides, present their argument. If McCain, Obama or any other candidate make a gaffe or have any issues then so be it. Since when do opinions have to present new thoughts?
Of course, all of this is my opinion on letting the candidates shoot themselves in the foot on their own merit if need be. Is the average NYT reader going to look at the original McCain editorial and say – “Well I heard it before, but now that I heard it again, I’ll change my mind!” Probably not…
On a side note, I like the nice clean layout of the site. And if you must know, I keep coming here via blogexplosion
@Anthony Fuller : So as not to have to repeat myself (I am feeling rather tired today for some reason), see my reply to The BoBo here.
Thank you!
Wouldn’t it be easier just to link me from your blog? That way, you could pop on over whenever you pleased.
@Len : Link added, I like the cut of your jib, even if we disagree politically
The NY times does have a right to not publish it. They have the right to decide what is in their own paper, but they have a responsibility as a news provider to at least try to be impartial.