The New York Times sends John McCain's op ed back for a rewrite.
Words fail.
Can we call them biased yet?
And just what does he means when he'd like to see McCain's piece "mirror" Obama? Does he mean that as in a reverse counterpoint? Or does he mean (as in servers) an exact copy?
Thoughts from Rick Moran, as the Times continues, unwittingly, to write its own obituary.
For the original submitted McCain Op-Ed, goto http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/the-mccain-op-ed-the-new-york-times-wouldnt-publish/
You might consider "Digg"ing it as well
It sounds like this election is going to be a lose-lose proposition for the American MSM. If Obama loses despite their best efforts they are a busted flush. The less power they are shown to have the less any politician will care about them. But if they pull out all the stops to get him over the top, they wipe out their own credibility - and audiences, and revenue - in the process. The only way they can come out ahead is for Obama to win so resoundingly that media bias won't even be considered as a factor, which looks very unlikely at this point.
Eh, I think the Brits have it right. Their papers wear their colors on their sleeves (without pretentions at "objectivity"), and they do Okay.
The one main advantage that the Brits have is that they have intellectually rigorous conservative papers. Plural. We have the WSJ, which is a great paper, but its focus on finance precludes it from mass circulation. Maybe USA Today will one day fulfill that role. Or who knows, even the Wapo might go that way. Desperation can do funny things. :)
Astonishing and bordering on suicidal since McCain-Feingold make it illegal for partisans to advertise for a preferred candidate 60(?) days before an election. On what basis can they claim they're a simple newspaper if they are unwilling to print the opinions major presidential candidate?
> Astonishing and bordering on suicidal since McCain-Feingold make it illegal for partisans to advertise for a preferred candidate 60(?) days before an election.
McCain-Feingold doesn't apply to "the press" - that's part of why they pushed for it.
Let's see ...
Obama submits an unsolicited op-ed piece to explain his latest position on Iraq. The Times accepts it; no evidence has been presented that there was any sort of iterative refinement process between Obama and the editors.
McCain submits a rebuttal to Obama's op-ed. The Times rejects it, ostensibly because it doesn't offer "new information" (about a position that McCain hasn't changed), because it doesn't "articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq" (even though Obama never defined "victory" in his piece), and because it doesn't "mirror" the template of Obama's unsolicited op-ed piece. But the editors indicate that they might accept an op-ed from him if he follows their suggestions on modifying its content.
Why in the world would anyone ever think that the Times has some sort of bias?
I, for one, am waiting with bated breath to learn which candidate the Grey Lady will endorse.