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

[mhaverty]

So what's the problem? Who gives a shit if the liberal newspaper doesn't print EXACTLY the version of McInsane's diatribe that he submits?

Tell him to send it to his ball washing newsrag the WSJ.

Because the "paper of record" and a major American newspaper is supposed to give the candidates for the presidental election equal thrift. Operative word being "supposed" to. The NY times left the reservation on this a long time ago.

[mhaverty]

The New York Times is certainly free of any conservative voices in their opinion section


Just to be safe though they really should publish any and all pieces written by Republicans regardless of merit.

This is like saying that a diet coke balances out a Super Size Wopper meal.

[Brootsquad]

Because the "paper of record" and a major American newspaper is supposed to give the candidates for the presidental election equal thrift. Operative word being "supposed" to. The NY times left the reservation on this a long time ago.

I could swear they asked him to edit it and submit a better version more in line with what type of piece they were looking for. Is it their fault he's a kooky old loon who yells at kids on his lawn??

[guest of a friend]

Because the "paper of record" and a major American newspaper is supposed to give the candidates for the presidental election equal thrift. Operative word being "supposed" to. The NY times left the reservation on this a long time ago.

such a douchebag.

They did no such thing (and I can't stand that rag).

They simply sad that this isn't a place to simply launch political attacks. If you wanna do what Obama did and lay out a your vision for your foreign policy you can.. and please please do, we'd love you to.

That's hardly, "McCain has to substantively be like Obama" and you know it.

[do_run_run]

Ball washing? Or more interesting and newsworthy?

Seriously, McCain's tour reminds me of Bush Sr. when he was being interviewed by MTV and he was a crotchety old fart and came off looking out of step with America and the youth. While Clinton was hip and modern.

Thing is MacCain has had perfect opportunities to take advantage of him being out of the country to attack him and he continues to flub up everything. Have you seen his new commercial blaming Obama for gas prices? People on all sides are making fun of him for that. How about saying that Iraq borders Pakistan? His job this week was supposed to talk economy to under cut Obama's foreign trip, instead he has been making flubs on both the economy AND Foreign policy (which is his main selling point). The running joke is that Obama should just come home now while he is ahead.

Is there news bias? Of course there is. He is a much more engaging character then McCain. Having him on TV sells ads, gets viewers etc. It's money people, not political bent. Now they are able to keep the story going further by discussing whether or not he is getting too much coverage. That should carry on for another 2 weeks until the Olympics. After that the conventions start. The news media is squeezing this for all it's worth. They have made more money and had more viewership in a time that is supposed to be the "down time" of the election. Of course they are going to stay with what people are going to watch.

As for the NYT thing. After reading what was sent back to the McCain camp for the re write, it made sense. They don't just publish whatever someone send them and it is always a practice to re write. The editor's suggestions made sense. He basically told McCain he was not publishing something that was the same old talking points that had been used for months. He wanted something fresh, something that expanded on what McCains own policies would be under specific situations etc. That is what the meant by making it more like Obama's piece. When his piece was printed it laid out completely new plans and solutions that had yet to enter his stump. They were giving the McCain camp a chance to hit back with substance (which they claim is Obama's fault, no substance).

This post has been edited by do_run_run: Jul 22 2008, 08:50 AM

[Danny Vermin]

Because the "paper of record" and a major American newspaper is supposed to give the candidates for the presidental election equal thrift.

Since when?

[mhaverty]

such a douchebag.

They did no such thing (and I can't stand that rag).

They simply sad that this isn't a place to simply launch political attacks. If you wanna do what Obama did and lay out a your vision for your foreign policy you can.. and please please do, we'd love you to.

That's hardly, "McCain has to substantively be like Obama" and you know it.

So now defining how what you said in the past (which was right) vs. what your political opponent said (which was wrong) is a political attack? Defining how you would go about things going forward against what your opponent says is an attack Wow you really eat the horseshit with two heaping spoons.

[thesharpestknife]

The NY Times is far from a conservative paper. The Wall Street Journal is. Times? Hardly.

well, their op-ed pages seem to be equal opportunity...

[mhaverty]

Since when?

That is what my journalism professors taught me. In the real world it is bullshit. So.... exactly bra exactly.

[mhaverty]

well, their op-ed pages seem to be equal opportunity...

It this case... apparently not.


And as far as their staffing not so much either.

The NY Times employs a dozen clearly liberal editorial writers and 2 conservatives.

[Danny Vermin]

So now defining how what you said in the past (which was right) vs. what your political opponent said (which was wrong) is a political attack? Defining how you would go about things going forward against what your opponent says is an attack Wow you really eat the horseshit with two heaping spoons.

Is it at all possible that the article McCain submitted just plain wasn't very good, and would have made both the paper and McCain himself look terrible by printing it?

Because from all accounts - this is what the truth was. It was poorly written.

[mhaverty]

Thing is MacCain has had perfect opportunities to take advantage of him being out of the country to attack him and he continues to flub up everything. Have you seen his new commercial blaming Obama for gas prices? People on all sides are making fun of him for that. How about saying that Iraq borders Pakistan? His job this week was supposed to talk economy to under cut Obama's foreign trip, instead he has been making flubs on both the economy AND Foreign policy (which is his main selling point). The running joke is that Obama should just come home now while he is ahead.

Is there news bias? Of course there is. He is a much more engaging character then McCain. Having him on TV sells ads, gets viewers etc. It's money people, not political bent. Now they are able to keep the story going further by discussing whether or not he is getting too much coverage. That should carry on for another 2 weeks until the Olympics. After that the conventions start. The news media is squeezing this for all it's worth. They have made more money and had more viewership in a time that is supposed to be the "down time" of the election. Of course they are going to stay with what people are going to watch.

As for the NYT thing. After reading what was sent back to the McCain camp for the re write, it made sense. They don't just publish whatever someone send them and it is always a practice to re write. The editor's suggestions made sense. He basically told McCain he was not publishing something that was the same old talking points that had been used for months. He wanted something fresh, something that expanded on what McCains own policies would be under specific situations etc. That is what the meant by making it more like Obama's piece. When his piece was printed it laid out completely new plans and solutions that had yet to enter his stump. They were giving the McCain camp a chance to hit back with substance (which they claim is Obama's fault, no substance).

It is not a news editors job to tell a candidate for president of the united states what his positions should be and how he should present them.

[mhaverty]

Is it at all possible that the article McCain submitted just plain wasn't very good, and would have made both the paper and McCain himself look terrible by printing it?

Because from all accounts - this is what the truth was. It was poorly written.

Yes. ALL accounts. I see.

[Danny Vermin]

It is not a news editors job to tell a candidate for president of the united states what his positions should be and how he should present them.

When it pertains to editorials being printed in said Editor's newspaper - it most certainly is.

[Danny Vermin]

Yes. ALL accounts. I see.

all except yours.

[mhaverty]

When it pertains to editorials being printed in said Editor's newspaper - it most certainly is.

It was not under they by line of one of his employee's.

[Danny Vermin]

It was not under they by line of one of his employee's.

All editorials printed in any newspaper are done so at the editor's discretion.


This is such a non-story, it isn't even funny.

[HomerRamone]

Because the "paper of record" and a major American newspaper is supposed to give the candidates for the presidental election equal thrift. Operative word being "supposed" to. The NY times left the reservation on this a long time ago.

So you're for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, then, whereby radio stations couldn't broadcast nothing but Limbaugh and Savage types, but would have to allow for opposing points of view?

This post has been edited by HomerRamone: Jul 22 2008, 09:28 AM

[guest of a friend]

So now defining how what you said in the past (which was right) vs. what your political opponent said (which was wrong) is a political attack? Defining how you would go about things going forward against what your opponent says is an attack Wow you really eat the horseshit with two heaping spoons.

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".

[sixpinelbow]

It was not under they by line of one of his employee's.

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.

[terrydactyl]

i didnt read any of this thread
but maybe its just a
"havent you people done enough to this country already?" thing

[JodyThePig]

Because the "paper of record" and a major American newspaper is supposed to give the candidates for the presidental election equal thrift. Operative word being "supposed" to. The NY times left the reservation on this a long time ago.

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.

[benhamean]

McCain does a very similar tour and no anchors of the major networks go. Obama does it and all 3 anchors travel to the countries and lead their broadcast from there. Patently ridiculous ball washing.

McCain challenged Obama to do a tour like this. McCain's only hope of winning this election is if Obama fails this (foreign policy related) test.

It is huge news, not insignificantly because of McCain's own bluster.

McCain has emphasized Obama as much as anyone. Almost all the news McCain makes these days is Obama-centric.

[Maximum Tor]

This is like saying that a diet coke balances out a Super Size Wopper meal.

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.

[JodyThePig]

It is not a news editors job to tell a candidate for president of the united states what his positions should be and how he should present them.

It's a news editor's job to decide how things will be presented in the paper.