NY Times rejects McCain Op Ed, wants time tables first.

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
It looks like these guys aren't even trying to hide it. We're looking at a virtual coup of our election and government, by the media.

www.drudgereport.com...

NYT REJECTS MCCAIN'S EDITORIAL; SHOULD 'MIRROR' OBAMA
Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned


Thats right, the NYT editor Shipley has decided that he doesn't agree with McCain's plan for Iraq and simply wont print the piece.


Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

'The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.'

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'


Thats right, it must "mirror" Obama's piece to be considered. Is this the "new direction" the left wants to take us in?

I love how he claims leaving Iraq before the job is done is "new information". I cant believe how brazen he is in admitting hes simply a biased hack, who would probably rather there wasn't even an election.




posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain DEFINES VICTORY IN IRAQ.'



You see, your title is a farce. The NYTimes is asking the McCain campaign for a definition of what constitutes victory. They want the same level of detail from McCain as they received from Obama.

The McCain camp doesn't have a clue. Have you seen the people he has had advising him lately?

So the only thing they can do is spin it to make it sound like the NYTimes wants something with a negative buzzword like TIMETABLE.

The NYTimes NEVER asked for a "Timetable". They asked for definitions of Victory and specific details of the plan, just like they got from the forthcoming and transparent Obama.

I'm really starting to see that this forum has been hijacked by the irrational and delusional.






[edit on 21-7-2008 by Quazga]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Of course, Drudge left out the part where it's standard procedure to go back and forth with an author. It's not like it was a permanent rejection, he just asked that McCain, instead of JUST criticizing Obama, perhaps he should say what his plans are.

From cnn



In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission."


McCain's was just a complete attack on Obama instead of what HE would do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Watch WHY this piece was Rejected

McCain is being quite the whiner. Now he's attacking the Times. LOL



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

The McCain camp doesn't have a clue. Have you seen the people he has had advising him lately?


No I'm sorry. Thats simply the line the democrats have been tossing around the last few years. Victory has ALWAYS been an Iraq and can govern and defend itself. It doesn't matter, because no matter how many times we say that, you guys will claim you don't know what victory is.


Of course, Drudge left out the part where it's standard procedure to go back and forth with an author.



He laid out his reasons for not accepting it and you guys are picking out the ones that are less obviously bias driven.

-Needs to mirror Obama's
-Wants timetable

These are personal reasons, not legitimate.

I was just watching CNN and even Caferty said this is very unusual. Especially after just publishing Obama's. Not to mention, Mr. Shipley worked in the Clinton Administration.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by Dronetek]



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The N.Y. Times as victim, you're kidding, right?
They didn't like the content of an American Presidential candidates' op-ed piece, a long serving U.S. Senator, and some dweeb from the Clinton administration has the nerve to tell him that his piece is biased? Is this the same Times that runs plagiarised stories as major features and when they're not doing that they run fiction? The N.Y. Times is the major reason newspapers in general are in severe decline.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 21 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Of course, Drudge left out the part where it's standard procedure to go back and forth with an author. It's not like it was a permanent rejection, he just asked that McCain, instead of JUST criticizing Obama, perhaps he should say what his plans are.

From cnn



In a statement released Monday, The New York Times said it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission."


McCain's was just a complete attack on Obama instead of what HE would do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Watch WHY this piece was Rejected

McCain is being quite the whiner. Now he's attacking the Times. LOL


Odd how they are trying everything to go against Obama, but none of it has any substance.

It's pretty much a foregone conclusion, Obama will be POTUS.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   


Odd how they are trying everything to go against Obama, but none of it has any substance.

It's pretty much a foregone conclusion, Obama will be POTUS.


Well, the NYT isn't letting McCain go after Obama on substance. Thats the problem.

Even NYT people have written that one sides debates are dangerous.

www.nytimes.com...

June 24, 2007
The Public Editor
The Danger of the One-Sided Debate

By CLARK HOYT
THE op-ed page of The New York Times is perhaps the nation’s most important forum for airing opinions on the most contentious issues of the day — the war in Iraq, abortion, global warming and more.
“We look for opinions that are provocative,” said Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page. “Opinions that confirm what you already thought aren’t that interesting.”
But some opinions provoke more than others. Two very different columns by guest contributors, one last week and one last month, caused enormous reader outcries and raised important questions. Are there groups or causes so odious they should be ruled off the page? If The Times publishes a controversial opinion, does it owe readers another point of view immediately? And what is the obligation of editors to make sure that op-ed writers are not playing fast and loose with the facts?
The most recent column was by Ahmed Yousef, a spokesman for Hamas, the party elected to lead the Palestinian government and a group dedicated to the destruction of Israel. He wrote Wednesday about “What Hamas Wants.”
Many readers were outraged, complaining that The Times had provided a platform for a terrorist. One, Jon Pensak of Sherborn, Mass., said that allowing Yousef space in The Times “isn’t balanced journalism, it is more the dissemination of propaganda in the spirit of advocacy journalism.”
Well, yes. The point of the op-ed page is advocacy. And, Rosenthal said, “we do not feel the obligation to provide the kind of balance you find in news coverage, because it is opinion.”
David Shipley, one of Rosenthal’s deputies and the man in charge of the op-ed page, said: “The news of the Hamas takeover of Gaza was one of the most important stories of the week. ... This was our opportunity to hear what Hamas had to say.”
I agree that Yousef’s piece should have run, even though his version of reality is at odds with the one I understand from news coverage. He wrote blandly, for example, about creating “an atmosphere of calm in which we resolve our differences” with Israel without mentioning that Hamas is officially dedicated to raising “the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine,” which would mean no more Israel.
Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that’s the way a free society decides what’s right and what’s wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.
Rosenthal and Shipley said that, over time, they try to publish a variety of voices on the most important issues. Regular op-ed readers have seen a wide range of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have a lot of other information to help judge Yousef’s statements.

Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that’s the way a free society decides what’s right and what’s wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


Does Op Ed means opinion? How can you dictate what an opinion must be? They should just print what he wrote an let its readers decide if it makes sense or not. Concrete terms. You can't even tell me one thing that Obama has in concrete. That's the reason he is running on change. He changes things depending on who he is talking to. Even his Iraq plan is subject to change.

obamawtf.blogspot.com...



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Quazga
 


Does Op Ed means opinion? How can you dictate what an opinion must be? They should just print what he wrote an let its readers decide if it makes sense or not. Concrete terms. You can't even tell me one thing that Obama has in concrete. That's the reason he is running on change. He changes things depending on who he is talking to. Even his Iraq plan is subject to change.

obamawtf.blogspot.com...



here is the difference that you are seemingly missing.


The NYT is not trying to dictate his opinion. They are saying "We want an opinion piece that is not an attack against your opponent, but is about what your specific plans are and why you think they are great."

Obama did this, Why can't McCain?



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


You're just too much.

"They aren't trying to dictate his opinion, just that it should be more like Obama's!"

Also, don't tell me Obama didn't attack McCain in his. There are a couple spots where he calls McCain out.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Quazga
 


I seeming an not missing a thing. That's why they call it an opinion. It shouldn't have to mirror somebody who has an opposite viewpoint. Obama doesn't have specific plans. Even if elected he still has to consult with everybody, formulate a new plan, convince Congress to pass it as he wants it, watch conditions in Iraq come January, and many other scenarios that may throw a wrench in his plans.

If Obama is so good for the country, then why did he wait till running for President to suggest all these Marvelous things that are going to fix our problems rather than get her done in the Senate? Same goes for McCain. They both mean well but their party(Congress) has other plans on the way things should be.

[edit on 22-7-2008 by jam321]



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I would say that regardless how one views this situation with the NYT, that it speaks about the NYT and not any particular candidate.

It doesn't really reflect badly on Obama or McCain. Although I have my assumptions as to why the McCain group backed out.





top topics
 
2

log in

join