Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Nuclear Phobia | Main | Polar Bears »

And Get It Right This Time

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.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: And Get It Right This Time.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


J'hn1 wrote:

For the original submitted McCain Op-Ed, goto

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.

Brock wrote:

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. :)

Joe Triscari wrote:

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?

Andy Freeman wrote:

> 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.

Mike G in Corvallis wrote:

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.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on July 21, 2008 12:09 PM.

Nuclear Phobia was the previous entry in this blog.

Polar Bears is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1