New York Times Silences John McCain
I’ve heard right wingers complain about liberal media bias for years, and I never took those complaints seriously. After all, they have Rush Limbaugh and a slew of conservative pundits on talk radio, as well as Fox News. I was a bit shocked to find out that maybe those charges weren’t entirely off-base: The New York Times has refused to reprint a rebuttal editorial that John McCain wrote in response to Barack Obama’s editorial.
The reason? From the New York Times op-ed editor David Shipley:
“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. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.”
Um, excuse me, but if McCain is writing a rebuttal, it should absolutely not “mirror” Obama’s piece. “Mirroring” Obama’s piece, from what I can tell here, means that McCain is supposed to buy into Shipley’s personal definition of what is appropriate Iraq policy. (Shipley, by the way, used to work for the Clinton administration.)
Whether or not the New York Times staff agrees with McCain’s positions, I believe the New York Times has an obligation to give equal and fair time to both presidential candidates and publish McCain’s rebuttal. (Heck, give some equal and fair time to third party candidates while you are at it.)
If Shipley wants to publish only one-sided pro-Obama pieces, he should go blog at DailyKos or something. But he should not be working at a major newspaper.
Posted: July 22nd, 2008 under Barack Obama, John McCain, Media Bias.
Comments: 4
Comments
Comment from 30yrdem-not any more
Time: July 23, 2008, 1:02 pm
The more I learn about what has been going on…well I just feel like I have been lied to for years. The bias in the media…did you read democratic sites during the primary?…they trashed Clinton daily…
I believe it now about the liberal media. I have learned to recognize when I am being mislead…better late than never I guess. 
I did find a couple good articles today at the Washington Post
Mr. Obama in Iraq
Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202462.html
Behind Maliki’s Games
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/22/AR2008072202550.html
I wrote a bit about it on my blog…I am not a writer, that is for sure…Maybe you could write something on them…One thing I noticed…Obama and Maliki are a lot alike, in many ways…. Both refuse to say the surge worked but there are more similarities.. plus the fact democrats didn’t think much of him(Maliki) till he could help Obama…he will go under the bus when Obama and the dems are done with him. I believe McCain is more familiar with Maliki and his ways….What do you think?
Comment from sara b
Time: July 24, 2008, 2:01 am
Wow! It’s interesting how the adoration and obsession by the news media with Obama has become a news item in its own right. (And, of course, there is also the occasional observation that McCain gets relatively no coverage at all, in the shadow of the chosen demigod.)
I am really shocked that the NYT would not just freely print a response by John McCain on their editorial page. Aside from being somewhat fair-minded with respect to equal time for candidates, it would certainly sell some newspapers. Who wouldn’t like to read a back and forth between the candidates, especially when one can presume that they actually wrote the letters themselves?
Why does the NYT think it’s okay or respectful to dictate to a Senator and Presidential Candidate what he can say in his own letter to the editor? I cringed when I read that.
Comment from Alix F
Time: July 26, 2008, 8:44 pm
Not surprising. They’re all in the bag for Obama.
Comment from gradivus
Time: August 6, 2008, 10:09 am
Even if we take David Shipley’s comments at face value, it means that the New York Times’ op-ed editorial policy is that only Barak Obama may define the exact subject matter that an op-ed by a presidential candidate may cover, and any other candidate must cover the exact same points that Obama does in order to be “fit to print” as an op-ed by the “Newspaper of Record.”
Write a comment