NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA, Media Bias ..? Options

[Brootsquad]

Shemp's rather brilliant comment was that NYT only prints articles they "agree" with.

An overwhelming liberal bias in the media is a rather tenuous argument to make and those that do seem to be of the position that the media should only exist to cheerlead Republicans.

And if the media is so Obama biased, why is this story everywhere and they are all making a big deal out of it?

[Truth be known]

Shemp's rather brilliant comment was that NYT only prints articles they "agree" with.

An overwhelming liberal bias in the media is a rather tenuous argument to make and those that do seem to be of the position that the media should only exist to cheerlead Republicans.

Honestly, I watch Repubs lie in the media all the time. Maybe that's the real problem here. They are whiners because their aggressive mentality reporting is not mainstream, period. Plus, you know, the lying thing too.

[Truth be known]

And if the media is so Obama biased, why is this story everywhere and they are all making a big deal out of it?

Exactly. It's a ridiculous argument. The media trounced Obama on the Wright thing, and killed him on the "bitter" comments. Geeze, they fucking reported it like when Buckwheat got shot!!! Have you seen the tape??!?!?!?! Let'ssssssssss take a look.

[benhamean]

Why the New York Times were right to reject John McCain's article

...Well, political pieces by elected officials or candidates can often be very boring - safe, unrevealing and tediously partisan. In general I required such pieces to jump over a pretty high importance barrier before I ran them.

Obama's piece vaulted that hurdle. It outlined his views, pretty much avoided point scoring, and dealt with the issue.

McCain's piece, on the other hand, knocked the hurdle over. It wasn't about Iraq. It was about Obama. If I received it I would have done exactly what the NYT did - send it back and ask them to redraft it so that it was about Iraq and was more, well, interesting.

[guest of a friend]

Why the New York Times were right to reject John McCain's article

...Well, political pieces by elected officials or candidates can often be very boring - safe, unrevealing and tediously partisan. In general I required such pieces to jump over a pretty high importance barrier before I ran them.

Obama's piece vaulted that hurdle. It outlined his views, pretty much avoided point scoring, and dealt with the issue.

McCain's piece, on the other hand, knocked the hurdle over. It wasn't about Iraq. It was about Obama. If I received it I would have done exactly what the NYT did - send it back and ask them to redraft it so that it was about Iraq and was more, well, interesting.

Well, any paper with the word "Times" in its name is liberally biased.. except the Washington Times of course...

[mhaverty]

I'm sure in your head this is intelligible, but it isn't to the rest of us.

I'm also sure you'd want the government to control the editorial pages of newspapers so that they're "fair".

Calling somebody out for being a douche is far from wanting douche clauses written in to law. Never criticize anybody. Ever.

[mhaverty]

I gotta say man, for someone who paid such close attention in that supposed journalism class you must have slept in the day they described what a newspaper editor does.

Actually I did. Submissions from outside writers get treated differently than ones from writers working for the paper. You tread on very shaky ground asking a presidential candiate to edit his submission. Even lesser figures opens you up for criticism. On a much smaller scale than this of course but when I was in college there was a series of racial incidents on campus and a black girl turned in an editorial essay giving the black side of what was going on. It was rife with spelling errors and written horribly. The proffessor advisor was furious with us for editing it beyond running it through spell check. He was emphatic to either print it as is or not run it at all. He told us to pray something better comes in from that point of view before deadline. We gave him shit for being afraid for the obvious reasons but he was emphatic that the editing of outside submissions is a very very slippery slope in any instance. He even had us talk to some editor freinds of his at other daily newspapwers.

So based on my experience you don't you can take your snyde comments and shove them up your ass.

[Brootsquad]

Actually I did. Submissions from outside writers get treated differently than ones from writers working for the paper. You tread on very shaky ground asking a presidential candiate to edit his submission. Even lesser figures opens you up for criticism. On a much smaller scale than this of course but when I was in college there was a series of racial incidents on campus and a black girl turned in an editorial essay giving the black side of what was going on. It was rife with spelling errors and written horribly. The proffessor advisor was furious with us for editing it beyond running it through spell check. He was emphatic to either print it as is or not run it at all. He told us to pray something better comes in from that point of view before deadline. We gave him shit for being afraid for the obvious reasons but he was emphatic that the editing of outside submissions is a very very slippery slope in any instance. He even had us talk to some editor freinds of his at other daily newspapwers.

So based on my experience you don't you can take your snyde comments and shove them up your ass.

Uhhhh....did that black girl write this for you Mhav?!?? This hurt my brain.







I don't pick on spelling or grammatical errors, EVER, but that was too funny to pass up.

[mhaverty]

Whatever "equal thrift" means, it has never been the policy of any American paper to accept drafts of anything no questions asked/no revisions asked for.

I know you like making your partisan points lest ye die of ennui or some shit, but you're engaging in an amazing stretch here.

The Professor who oversaw the college newspaper I worked for was emphatic about either not printing out side submissions at all or running them as is since they were under a non-paper by line and it was clear it wasn't the work of the paper. He even called friends who worked for daily newspapers and they backed up his sentiments. I know you think everything you disagree with from others has to be partisan and not from some great place of openess from wich you and you alone operate.

It isn't a newspaper editors job to decide what a political candiates message or platform is. Their job is supposed to be to present opposing view points and beyond that to make commentary.

[mhaverty]

Uhhhh....did that black girl write this for you Mhav?!?? This hurt my brain.
I don't pick on spelling or grammatical errors, EVER, but that was too funny to pass up.

Fair enough I guess. This is a message board. Not the newspaper. Next time I will read it over and hit spell check. I am doing work and this at the same time so it is what is. You don't do this but the grammar police here to a man or woman all make spelling errors or use horrible grammar with in 2 posts of being a douche. The best is when they do it within the same post critical of grammar or spelling. That happens at least half the time.

[Brootsquad]

The Professor who oversaw the college newspaper I worked for was emphatic about either not printing out side submissions at all or running them as is since they were under a non-paper by line and it was clear it wasn't the work of the paper. He even called friends who worked for daily newspapers and they backed up his sentiments. I know you think everything you disagree with from others has to be partisan and not from some great place of openess from wich you and you alone operate.

It isn't a newspaper editors job to decide what a political candiates message or platform is. Their job is supposed to be to present opposing view points and beyond that to make commentary.

But were they really opposing view points? Or was JMCC looking at this opportunity more like free ad space for his negative attack campaign? I think the editor (who has the right to do what he/she pleases, regardless of your outrage and code of ethics) gave him a fair chance to write something that was more on point with what Obama was saying, and show a better opposing view point.

As even you said, I think, this turned out MUCH better than if he actually had that opinion printed. They should have run it as is.

[benhamean]

McCain is sucking all the oxygen out of this 'story' with his pouting about the press not paying enough attention to him...


He pissed off Robert Novak for leading Novak to believe McCain would name a VP this week (to try and generate a little press). It was a fake. I heard Novak say 'That's Bullshit"


Be careful what you wish for, old guy...

[Brootsquad]

Fair enough I guess. This is a message board. Not the newspaper. Next time I will read it over and hit spell check. I am doing work and this at the same time so it is what is. You don't do this but the grammar police here to a man or woman all make spelling errors or use horrible grammar with in 2 posts of being a douche. The best is when they do it within the same post critical of grammar or spelling. That happens at least half the time.

Like I said, I don't choose to pick on things like spelling, it's a fucking message board, so forgive my douchiness (not a word I assume). You are all good in my book and I enjoy your posts, I was just busting balls.

What I can tell though, is that the more mad you get, the more horrible your spelling becomes. I'm EXACTLY like that too.

[mhaverty]

Why the New York Times were right to reject John McCain's article

...Well, political pieces by elected officials or candidates can often be very boring - safe, unrevealing and tediously partisan. In general I required such pieces to jump over a pretty high importance barrier before I ran them.

Obama's piece vaulted that hurdle. It outlined his views, pretty much avoided point scoring, and dealt with the issue.

McCain's piece, on the other hand, knocked the hurdle over. It wasn't about Iraq. It was about Obama. If I received it I would have done exactly what the NYT did - send it back and ask them to redraft it so that it was about Iraq and was more, well, interesting.

What a crock of shit. It was about Obama's policy regarding Iraq so it was about Obama and his platform. So if McCain writes a retort to this it is only personal and not about the issues at hand? I hate to break it to you Ben but a candidates issues and what they say are part of them. It isn't personal. It is about what the represent as a candidate as an idividual and their party that they represent either directly or to lesser degrees.

Even worse is this whole "interesting" tack. That is rich. So we shouldn't write about global warming because some editor might not find it "interesting"? The fact is their policies are fundamentally different. For an editor to decide that McCain's tack isn't interesting isn't the point of the exercise here and is a gross leap from what his responsibilities are. Boring woud be if their positions were the same. They are not.

[mhaverty]

Like I said, I don't choose to pick on things like spelling, it's a fucking message board, so forgive my douchiness (not a word I assume). You are all good in my book and I enjoy your posts, I was just busting balls.

What I can tell though, is that the more mad you get, the more horrible your spelling becomes. I'm EXACTLY like that too.

Not mad brother. I just am doing two things at once and should just slow down to read things over. I do that with the proposals I write. If this was a letter to the editor I would read it over twice and spell check. If this was anything more important than internet bs I would take more time.

[mhaverty]

McCain is sucking all the oxygen out of this 'story' with his pouting about the press not paying enough attention to him...
He pissed off Robert Novak for leading Novak to believe McCain would name a VP this week (to try and generate a little press). It was a fake. I heard Novak say 'That's Bullshit"
Be careful what you wish for, old guy...

Obama's people will be floating red herrings too. Looks like Bob is the one who lost a little speed off of his fastball here Ben. Think about it.

This post has been edited by mhaverty: Jul 23 2008, 08:21 AM

[benhamean]

What a crock of shit. It was about Obama's policy regarding Iraq so it was about Obama and his platform. So if McCain writes a retort to this it is only personal and not about the issues at hand? I hate to break it to you Ben but a candidates issues and what they say are part of them. It isn't personal. It is about what the represent as a candidate as an idividual and their party that they represent either directly or to lesser degrees.

Even worse is this whole "interesting" tack. That is rich. So we shouldn't write about global warming because some editor might not find it "interesting"? The fact is their policies are fundamentally different. For an editor to decide that McCain's tack isn't interesting isn't the point of the exercise here and is a gross leap from what his responsibilities are. Boring woud be if their positions were the same. They are not.

A little snippy this morning?

The NYT didn't publish a McCain piece that was all about Obama. They suggested he re-write it to be more about McCain's OWN plans.
Sounds reasonable. I guess not to McCain or his backers.

ALL this pissing and moaning and bellyaching and crying 'unfair' and making 'the press loves Barack, but not me' websites, and 'McCain/JV/Not as good as Obama's" press laminates is just flat out weak, girly, unpresidential stuff.

Imagine if McCain got 1/10th of the feeding frenzy of negative stuff that Obama has already endured "Wright, Bitter-gate, Flag-Pin mania"- McCain would probably break down in tears...

To paraphrase someone on your side of the political spectrum- "If he cannot handle the editor of the NYT, how can he handle dealing with our enemies?". Come on, man. McCain would be well served to drop this unbecoming, reactive, and degrading pursuit... it is (or should be) embarrassing.

[mfk]

What a crock of shit. It was about Obama's policy regarding Iraq so it was about Obama and his platform. So if McCain writes a retort to this it is only personal and not about the issues at hand? I hate to break it to you Ben but a candidates issues and what they say are part of them. It isn't personal. It is about what the represent as a candidate as an idividual and their party that they represent either directly or to lesser degrees.

Even worse is this whole "interesting" tack. That is rich. So we shouldn't write about global warming because some editor might not find it "interesting"? The fact is their policies are fundamentally different. For an editor to decide that McCain's tack isn't interesting isn't the point of the exercise here and is a gross leap from what his responsibilities are. Boring woud be if their positions were the same. They are not.

I don't suppose it matters that the NYT rejected several op-eds by then-sitting president, Bill Clinton. Or i guess that it doesn't matter that they didn't reject the author, but rather the draft of the op-ed. It was bad, plain and simple. And it stated nothing about McCain's plan for iraq, just bashed obama.

And i'm not even all that opposed to McCain. I think he's a smart guy, but he's completely gone off the rails lately. No more policy discussion, just attack attack attack. When's the last time he showed up for a vote in the Senate? you know... his JOB?

[JodyThePig]

Even worse is this whole "interesting" tack. That is rich. So we shouldn't write about global warming because some editor might not find it "interesting"? The fact is their policies are fundamentally different. For an editor to decide that McCain's tack isn't interesting isn't the point of the exercise here and is a gross leap from what his responsibilities are. Boring woud be if their positions were the same. They are not.

Please continue to provide reasons why you are not now and never will be an editor.

I'll check back later to note your progress.

[benhamean]

Please continue to provide reasons why you are not now and never will be an editor.

I'll check back later to note your progress.

Wow. You fought right through that devasting 'That is rich' argument-ender. Nice!

[benhamean]

McCain, despite screams of unfair coverage, cancels presser

..and after handing out the snappy little 'JV Sqad" laminate, too.

Must have been ducking questions about the 'unfair' press NOT airing his fuckup on the Surge timeline he made (CBS interview, fuckup edited out but still in the transcript, and which Obama would have been immolated for)...

[stiggs]

The proffessor advisor was furious with us for editing it beyond running it through spell check. He was emphatic to either print it as is or not run it at all.

"... or not run it at all"

Sounds like what the NYT editor did, so what's your beef?

Stiggs