The NYT has refused to accept an 'Op-Ed' written by Sen. McCain ...

@ladyluna (7004)
United States
July 21, 2008 1:36pm CST
Hello All, Can you imagine the New York Times ever refusing an editorial (opinion piece) from Sen. Obama??? Well, maybe when ice cubes flow in Hades. Yet, the NYT has seen fit to reject a well-penned Op-Ed piece from presidential candidate U.S. Senator John McCain. The NYT explanation for rejecting Senator McCain's submission is: "'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'" The op-ed submitted by Sen. McCain, and subsequently rejected by NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley can be read at link below: http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm Below is an excerpt from McCain's submission: [i]"Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.” The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.[/i] ____________________________________________________________________________________ Wow! What is your reaction to this incredible snub? And, might this signal the final nail in the coffin for the NYT? David Shipley's action clearly demonstrates there is absolutley no journalistic integrity left at the NYT.
3 people like this
17 responses
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
22 Jul 08
The fact is that McCain's article plainly states his case and plans for Iraq, and equally demonstrates Obama's naivety and lack of experience. The NYT does not want to let McCain show Obama for the fool that he really is, and McCain's piece does that quite well. The fact is that Obama doesn't have a clue about what he is doing... he obviously thinks that being president amounts to reading from a teleprompter. The NYT had no journalistic integrity to begin with, so that part was never in doubt.
4 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Jul 08
Hello Destiny, You're right, Destiny! McCain's Op-Ed does clearly state that the Iraqi needs pre-stipulate our troop withdrawal plans. This is a reasonable and very logical argument that the American People should consider before making their choice for President. The reason is that if we withdraw before the Iraqi's are fully equipped and trained to defend themselves from an invasion from an outside army, then we will have to go back in to help keep Iraq from being overtaken. It is clear as daylight to me that the Iraqi generals are saying just that. They have progresses nicely, with regard to dealing with the insurgency -- although they are not yet capable of defending from foreign attack. Which means that Iraq could not defend itself from an Iranian invasion. If one really reads McCain's submision, the primary difference between his and Sen. Obama's is that McCain focuses on Iraq's needs, and Obama focuses on what "I will do". This means that the basic difference is ego. McCain will adapt to the needs of our military and the Iraqi's ability to protect themselves from foreign insurgents, as well as an invading, foreign army. Meaning that McCain is saying that we need to make sure that the Iraqi's are fully equippped & trained, not partially so, before we move our soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan. This last part is singly THE STUPIDEST THING THAT ANY POLITICIAN HAS SUGGESTED IN A VERY LONG TIME. Where I have previously explained why, I believe it bears repeating again. No for I would urge all to re-read Sen. McCain's submission. It absolutely DOES criticize Sen. Obama's "Plan for Iraq", because McCain thinks it's dangerous (and so do many, many others including both the US & Iraqi military leaders). Though, McCains submission clearly OUTLINES his goals and plans. It simply does so in a different writing style -- McCain's focus is 'what needs to be done to render Iraq independent and strong', and Obama's focuses on 'what I'll do to pacify the fatigue of war', whether it's wise or not. It seems to me that the NYT editor prefers the 'me, me, me', 'I, I, I' style over a simple presentation of what still needs to be accomplished.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Jul 08
Hello Destiny, Oops! It looks like I didn't copy over my whole response. "Where I have previously explained why, I believe it bears repeating again. No for" Uh duh, silly me!!! The rest of my response should read: No foreign ocupying or invading army has ever won in Afghanistan. Never! So the idea of prematurely moving our troops out of Iraq, where there is existing infrastructure to accomodate the Afghanistan Front in The War on Terror, is beyond STUPID. It is wholly counter-productive and very, very dangerous!!!
• United States
23 Jul 08
Yep.
1 person likes this
• United States
21 Jul 08
'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece.' Mind boggling. It is like that editor does not realize elections are often between people of opposing opinion and they have an obligation to let both sides be heard. This hurts the NYT much more than it hurts McCain. Of course, tracking their stock price alone is enough to show anyone they have been making serious errors in judgement at the NYT for some time now.
4 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Jul 08
Hello Red, Exactly! Campaigns are, by definition, designed out expose candidate differences. Could it realistically be possible that David Shipley doesn't know that? Or is this Shipley's way of deliberately trying to affect the outcome of the election? And, doesn't that constitute a violation of election law?
1 person likes this
• United States
22 Jul 08
Why should they print McCains? He's just an old white guy. I'm just glad that there are plenty of news sources that are bias for McCain. In the meantime the media is focused on two candidates, continually misleading Americans and the world into thinking that democracy and a presidential election is about two candidates bickering and who has the most money. I'm ashamed that in this day and age where the world can watch closely on the internet and learn from a working democracy, that we couldn't come up with a better way to set an example to the world. I don't know, I don't understand all the hoopla about a timetable for a war anyway. I don't remember ever learning about a timetable for any of the World wars. I don't feel as if it's a good idea to lay out our plan for the enemy to stay one or more steps ahead. I don't even feel as if it's my business.
3 people like this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Timetables are foolish and show ignorance when dealing with something as uncertain as war. There are far too many variables to take into consideration. I'll assume your bit about them not printing McCain's because he's an old white guy is said in jest so I won't comment on it. Aside from that I pretty much agree with you. The media picks the candidates, and declares the front runners without really giving the American people enough information to make an educated choice. Sure, anyone with internet access can enlighten themselves and approach the election as educated voters, but most, despite the plethora of information, just let the media decide and latch on to whichever candidates the media tells them are front runners. That's why candidates who actually understand what it's like to struggle, and genuinely have ideas on how to change this country for the better, are ignored and silenced by news agencies in favor of those with the best gimmicks who can make the most exciting news stories. None of the "Non-Obama" candidates got fair treatment by the media during the primaries. I don't know why anyone would have expected that to change for the general election.
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Jul 08
The old white guy thing was just my sarcasm Taskr. Thank you for agreeing with everything else. Thank you Lady for your flattering response, I love reading your wise responses, I learn a lot from you. I think Mona suits me better too and was thinking about taking my hat off, letting my hair down and getting back to myself again. I just found an article by Glen Beck about this subject. I haven't read it all yet but if I know Glen, it's real good. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/12718/
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Jul 08
WOW! That was a really good link! I think that puts the whole media bias thing into perspective, and it is so realistically portrayed too. It almost made my leg tingle...
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
21 Jul 08
No surprise there. Naturally you can expect the minions of Obama to defend this action. The fact is that fair reporting hasn't happened in the slightest during this election. Obama is the media's baby and they've put the spotlight on him from the beginning while ignoring more qualified candidates like John Edwards. Now that the media has had its way, we're down to Obama and McCain so they'll do everything they can to keep people from hearing what McCain has to say while showing Obama's words in the best light possible. The last thing they want is for people to see Obama's hypocrisy as told in McCain's Op-Ed.
3 people like this
• United States
21 Jul 08
I think that it is totally fair for a newspaper to decide whether or not to run a piece. Especially since the piece in question does not stand alone as an article, it exists only as a critique of Obama's piece. Had McCain reworked the piece to simply state his views, I am sure it would have been run.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
21 Jul 08
Of course they're a private organization and they can do what they want and call it fair if they want. Personally I see no reason to say it's not a stand alone piece. I consider that a cop-out and an excuse for not printing it. They want it to mirror Obama's and there's no way you can call it fair that they let Obama choose the method for which articles are to be written and submitted.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13923)
• United States
21 Jul 08
On a side note, they didn't want him to restate his views, they wanted his piece to "Mirror Obama's". That says that they only want their point of view in their paper. It was not a critique of Obama's piece, but rather a stand alone piece, that criticized Obama's position. Obama criticized both McCain and Bush in his piece, so aside from the obvious lack of fairness, I can't see any reason why McCain can't criticize Obama in the same fashion.
2 people like this
@enzabird (130)
• United States
21 Jul 08
The New York Times shouldn't count as journalism any longer. There is nothing fair or unbiased about that paper. Countless times they have had a political agenda in the past, and yet again they are pushing one. Consider them political activists, not a source for good solid reporting.
3 people like this
• Alexandria, Virginia
21 Jul 08
ny times has gone down hill for some time what do you expect
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Hello Shoffman, What do I expect? I expect a fervent uproar from every American citizen. Because, if the NYT (or any major media outlet) will cross this line with someone who they previously favored for their 'maverick style', then there is no limit to their willingness to manipulate perception toward their desired goal. I also expect journalists who are true to their craft to stand in protest of this kind of unchecked fascism. What's more, I expect a full Federal Election Commission investigation. Where the NYT should be found in violation of Federal Election Commission law pertaining to the "equal time/equal format" statute. I expect for their to be an enormous fine -- because one of the few bastions of sincerity from the NYT is their sincere concern over falling profits, and their own job security. I imagine that those are enough expectations for right now? Though, I'm sure that other have their own expectations, and I welcome their input.
@Barb42 (4216)
• United States
21 Jul 08
The New York Times is a liberal-leaning newspaper. And I doubt that any piece that McCain wrote to refute what Obama wrote would please the editor enough to publish it. You will also see probably editorials about Obama's visit to Iraq and all the news reporters who went with him. But I doubt you heard about all the visits that McCain has made to visit our troops on the New York Times pages. There will never be a clear view of both candidates together from this newspaper. So don't hold your breath. You are right; no journalistic integrity left in most of the media, especially those leaning to the left.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Jul 08
Hello Barb42, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I concur with your excellent points! Though, what's got me so riled is: By brazenly refusing an Op-Ed from McCain, David Shipley has inserted himself into yours and my role in deciding the course of the nation. We have long known that the media has disgustingly abandoned the journalistic ethic, but this latest move signals the tipping point between biased reporting and fascist control over content! Even through the cloudy perspective that the NYT bias has created, they always attempted to keep up the appearance of impartiality. Now, they're not even interested in keeping up the illusions. I cannot understate how fascist I find this deliberate action to be. And, to boldly claim that it would be better if McCain's opinion mirrored Obama's??? What??? So, the only way he's going to get his opinion published is if he abandons everything that he believes to mirror Obama????? This sounds like something that I would have expected from the USSR, not the USA!
1 person likes this
@Barb42 (4216)
• United States
21 Jul 08
The "mirroring" comment blew my mind. I thought, why even write a piece, if you can't give your own opinions? If you have to share the same views in order to get published, don't fool with it. You are right; these people have put prejudice above truth getting out. They are sort of like a propaganda machine! If a reader is truly wanting to get to know the differences in these two candidates, they need not go to the New York Times because they won't find it. You find better information on blogs! This guy has forgotten his job is to report/publish the news, not try and proselytize others into his beliefs. But I am sure that isn't going to stop him. Apparently, he has made his candidate choice known by his decision to not publish that article by McCain.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Jul 08
"The "mirroring" comment blew my mind. I thought, why even write a piece, if you can't give your own opinions?" Exactly, Barb!!! I can't even believe how far over the line this is! What's really scary is this is how tyranny begins -- with the silencing of the opposition.
1 person likes this
• United States
22 Jul 08
I believe that the editorial written by Sen. McCain should of been printed. He made it clear in his editorial that setting up a time table would be a time bomb ready to explode. I always thought that a newspaper was sappost to be unbiased in its reporting. Not favor one candidate over the other. To me, what he has done is set journalism back to the 1930's when newspapers in Germany wrote just what Hitler wanted everyone to hear. Selective journalism is not true journalism. It's just forcing one's beliefs on it's readers. Eventually the paper will have no readers cause they will get tired of hearing the same bull crap. Fair is Fair. They should print it as it stands.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Hello Keeperofthetruth, First, I'd like to welcome you to MyLot. I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your time here! Funny, I've also been under the impression that a newspaper that touts itself as the 'record of times' should be free of bias. Interesting how we've both been so misguided, huh? (Sarcasm is definitely ON). I don't believe that you are out of line to make the analogy to Germany under the Third Reich. Much like the IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency) today, or Pravda under Soviet control, there is an absolute need for fascists to silence the opposition. If one takes an honest, arduous look at the initiatives of the growing Socialist movement in this country, it's impossible to NOT see the fascist footprint. With banning this, and legislating against that, it's impossible to NOT see the scary reality of an emboldened Socialist infusion. Sadly, I suspect that the inertia of apathy will cause the masses to remain oblivious to how dangerous this NYT First Amendment denial really is. Though, if the shoe were on the other foot -- how loudly would the left be screaming???
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
21 Jul 08
Before we ever have a fairness doctrine for talk radio maybe we should have a fairness doctrine for newspapers. Why not both are the press? One is mostly conservative, the other is mostly liberal. Only radio ever gets any attention according to the fairness doctrine. So shall we turn their instrument of information control, no we will not. Why, because we are better than that. We recognize that even though the New York Times is as blatantly liberal as Rosie O'Donnell is a lesbian they have the right to be. All we ask is the same respect towards our form of media. The New York Times is already suffuring from a lack of subscriber, I cannot imagine why. The New York Times cannot keep its stance as the newspaper of record for America and have such a lefty view of the world. Let us be honest how many people except the media, the elite, and the pseudoelite subscribe to the Time. I do not care how good their Sunday Crossword puzzle is I do not need it. If I want to work a crossword puzzle I will drive myself to Wal-Mart and buy one.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Hello Gewcew, Thank you for bringing the Fairness Doctrine into this discussion, AND for pointing out the only one political pursuasion is efforting themselves to silence the other. It is only the Democrat Party that is pursuing this effort. The Republican Party wants only the letter of election law -- which is equal time in an equal setting. While I take a bit of humor at your resolution to the crossword puzzle dilemma, the fact that much of the rest of the world believes that the NYT is still the newspaper of record in the USA, should not be discounted. Tomorrow I will be posting a discussion about what Iraqi's believe about our election and the troop withdrawal. And, let's face it, they have a significant stake in our '08 elections. The convoluted stream of U.S. news that makes its way to the Iraqi people is being funnelled out of our national news wires, of which the NYT is a huge source. So, this isn't as simple a matter as Americans just blowing off the NYT. Though, Iraq is not our only international concern over this type of media bias. What about Iran, Syria, Russia, China, Venezuela, Korea, and elsewhere across the globe? The MSM, including the NYT is both driving AND staging our current election. Which, of course is driving the globe's reaction, including other nation's foreign policy postures.
1 person likes this
@soooobored (1187)
• United States
21 Jul 08
Anyone who is interested can also find the Obama article in at: www.nytimes.com search terms "My plan for Iraq" Obama I agree with the New York Times decision not to run the article. According to the article linked in this post, they did not run the article because it did not indicate how "McCain defines victory in Iraq" in any concrete terms. Upon reading it, I would have to agree. Stylistically, the articles are very different. Obama outlines his plan to remove forces (the criticism of which is the focus of McCain's), outlining his ultimate goal FOR the removal of forces. His plan depends on the readiness of the Iraq army to be trained to take responsibility for their own security. Ultimately, his goal is to redirect attention to Al Qaeda, Iran, etc, those that actually present a threat of terrorism and have been virtually ignored since we took presence in Iraq. That is his ultimate goal in withdrawing forces. Where McCain's article is really only a critical piece of Obama's. It doesn't stand alone. And that is a valid reason for choosing not to run it. The redesign that NY Times asked for would very likely include a similar format to Obama's, a clear problem, solution, and goal.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Jul 08
Hello Soooobored, What you describe in your response is the making of a news article, or a press release. For either, the 'five W's': the who, what, when, where, how, and why are the 'meat' of the piece. Though, are you familiar with the parameters of the Editorial and Op-Ed columns of a newspaper? The editorial section features columns of opinion that are 'sanctioned' by the organization, in this case the NYT. The Op-Ed features non-'sanctioned' opinion from the general public. Never before in the history of U.S.A. journalism (that I'm aware of over the course of many, many years) has the editorial editor refused to print a cogent Op-Ed from a presidential candidate from either of the two major parties. Minor editing is quite common though, this complete refusal to accept such a submission is unprecendented! Taking into consideration that you are only 25 years old, I would urge you to peruse the archives of the NYT to review the long history of presidential candidate's Op-Ed submissions. You will rarely find the 'five W's' in such Op-Ed's, as the nature of the column is opinion.
1 person likes this
• United States
21 Jul 08
Regardless of my age, McCain's piece was not an appropriate submission. The only thing standing in his way to getting his message in the NY Times is his unwillingness to rework it to mirror Obama's style. With the five W's if you like! :-)
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Hello Soooobored, Why should an experienced Senator, a decorated military officer, who is running for the Office of the Presidency, and who has been featured in the NYT more times than I care to count, have to mirror a man with no experience in matters of war or foreign policy -- in the Op-Ed section of a newspaper? Do you not see the folly in this suggestion?
@1richgirl (126)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Well Duh- Why would the NYT want an article from Their opponent. They learly support Obama!! So much for fair and unbiased reporting. And what about equal time for candidates???
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Jul 08
Ya! They should run an article by Bob Barr as well!
1 person likes this
• United States
23 Jul 08
amen- they should run every candidate!!
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Jul 08
Hello 1richgirl, Welcome to MyLot. I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your time here. And ... thank you for picking up on the FEC 'campaign finance' law question here!!!
@clrumfelt (5452)
• United States
22 Jul 08
I was going to post on this myself if no one else did. It is just another case of the media's passionate love affair with Obama. I think every voter who finds what the New York times did unjust should boycott the magazine. they are blatantly playing the political game and justifying their actions, because they took sides under the guise of an op ed piece not being up to their standards. If this is the nail in david shipley's coffin, I think he deserves it. what he did is just wrong. Instead of acknowlegding the hard realities of the Iraq situation, they are sticking their heads in the sand and trying to convince the people we can just pull out and leave the country as is with no repercussions. McCain knows we can't whereas Obama does not. They are ignoring his experience and opting for the "dreams" approach, but it just isn't so, the way they are trying to project the war. History has shown what can happen in a country when we don't finish the job. The USA can't become all "dreamy" about the war now and go by a timetable to pull out of there because the situation is always changing and any well grounded politician knows this. Obama is just saying what he thinks the people want to hear. Tomorrow he may say just the opposite, so no one really knows what he would do if elected. Terrorists in the region could still do the USA a lot of harm if the war is not resolved in the right way, even though Sadaam is history.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Great points, Clrumfelt! Unless and until the Iraqi government is capable of defeating an invading, foreign military, like Iraq, then the US withdrawal will leave a vacuum. And, we all know that by nature a vacuum cannot remain void for long. It will fill itself up. Either the Dem. leadership and Sen. McCain are genuinely stupid, and the don't know about power vacuums. -or- they do know about the dangers of power vacuums -- and simply don't care!
1 person likes this
@Bugsey (775)
• United States
21 Jul 08
The New York Times was never fair, even during the primaries remember?
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Hello Bugsey, Yes, I do remember. In fact, many are still steaming over just that. Namely Hillary's supporters. Though, many on the right won't soon forget their many grievances either. Good point!
@cjgrooms (4456)
• United States
21 Jul 08
The nyt is and has always been as liberal as possible to be. Why this action surprises anyone i just can't understand. You do realize that if you don't agree with the left hell will freeze over before they allow you to state your views. Now if obama wants to criticize the other candidates then i am sure it would be okay, after all he wants this country to be a ran by a dictator (namely obama)same as nyt has wanted for years.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Jul 08
Hello Cjgrooms, Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this. I certainly can't argue your points. Though, I am unwilling to take this lying down. As I've mentioned throughout my earlier responses, there is simply too much at stake.
1 person likes this
@lightningd (1041)
• United States
21 Jul 08
I believe that the difference lies in the fact that Obama laid out a plan for withdrawl of our troops, where as, McCain just continues to point fingers and not lay out in reasonable terms how he would withdraw our troops. McCain is so pro-war just as President Shrub. They don't look at getting our troops out of there as anything other than surrender. They're not looking at it from the standpoint of letting Iraq take controll of their own country. It's time. Iraq wants to get started with this and feels that they can safely begin taking over in 2009. McCain and Bush want to keep troops on the ground there indefinitely. Meanwhile, we're losing more young lives and billions of dollars as every day goes by.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
21 Jul 08
Hello Lightningd, I see that you read the article, thank you. Though, make no mistake -- it is NOT the role of the New York Times to shape the presidential debate. Who in the heLL does David Shipley think he is??? The role of the journalism is to report, letting the reader, and in this case the voter decide. If David Shipley is not immediately terminated, the the NYT can kiss its reputation goodbye. This is simply the most brazen, despicable act of media bias that I can remember in a very, very long time. I challenge anyone to provide a prior example where the NYT has refused to accept a well-penned Op-Ed from a major presidential candidate before -- EVER!!!
1 person likes this
• United States
21 Jul 08
The problem as I saw it was that in the way McCain wrote it, it appeared to be more of a "Obama is doing this wrong, his plan is wrong, he voted this way, he doesn't support this or that".... I guess what I'm saying is that rather than say, "OK, this is the problem, and while Obama said this, I would do this", all McCain did was point fingers without offering any solutions.... If he had written it in more of a way that offered solutions rather than just what appeared to be a list of complaints against Obama, I think the NYT would have gladly printed it. (And I believe they said as much)
1 person likes this
• United States
21 Jul 08
By the way, by "mirroring" I believe they meant offering solutions rather than just a commentary on how McCain believes Obama is wrong or has unrealistic expectations.
1 person likes this
@MntlWard (880)
• United States
23 Jul 08
I know the Drudge Report wasn't interested in telling its readers the whole story (OMG BIAS!!!!), but there's more to the NYT's reasons why they didn't accept the piece. They also included advice about the kind of piece they want from McCain. You see, Senator Obama's article was almost entirely about Barack Obama, while Senator McCain's article was almost entirely about.....Barack Obama. They want McCain to write about John McCain.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
23 Jul 08
Hello MntlWard, I'd say that Matt Drudge did a fine job of presenting both sides of the story. In fact, I replied to an earlier response by stating: "It seems to me that the NYT editor prefers the 'me, me, me', 'I, I, I' style over a simple presentation of what still needs to be accomplished." I've also pointed out elsewhere that while basic editing is common in Op-Ed's, telling a presidential candidate that they should mirror the style of their opponent is unprecedented. If Sen. McCain is not a "me, me, me", "I, I, I" kind of candidate, then why should he have to fein so, to get his OPINION published in the NYT??? Do you not see how ludicrous this suggestion is? How would you react if your girlfriend or wife told you that you should kiss her the way her ex-boyfriend used to kiss her???
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
24 Jul 08
Sorry Kennyrose! I was readying to extract an excerpt out of your response, when I unintentionally hit 'enter'. Anyway, one intriguing point that I wanted to explore is: "Obama's black race complains about their great-great grandparents being in human bondage to the white man,now I see big brother Barack want to put his race in to another human bondage called mation wide community service." Hmmm, this raises an interesting question. Will the 90% of America's Blacks who support Obama's electoral run also support these heavy-handed government programs? And, with the same enthusiasm? My instinct screams NO! Though, it's difficult to predict, because it's impossible to know how much of Obama's proposals people are really hearing, and how much is being carried away on the wings of change.
@MntlWard (880)
• United States
24 Jul 08
The New York Times isn't John McCain's girlfriend. Do you think the NYT publishes every submission they get? Most articles wouldn't even be considered and would be returned with a form letter of rejection. The ones they do consider go through a process which sometimes involves the piece being sent back to the writer with advice for what changes need to be made for the paper to print it.
@TantrooM (61)
• United States
23 Jul 08
Having never read the NYT, (as their paper is far too pricey for the amount of drivel seeping from its pages, about things I hardly care about, and if I did I already read them online 6 hrs prior for free) I did not read Obama's piece... I would want to do that first before judging weather this is an actual apples to apples assessment and bias. If Obama laid out an opinion without mentioning his opponent in any way, or saying as McCain's can be paraphrased "My opponent has no idea what he's doing, and I can do better." Then that may be the reason. Had McCain not mentioned Obama, it might have gone through. However if Obama had made such a phrase in his article (I am better then McCain, and I can do better then McCain) directly as McCain had done, and they decided to run his and not McCains, it IS apple to apples and a snub. In the end though, people shouldn't be so shocked. If McCain did something positive the last place I'd expect to see it is in the NYT. If Obama did something positive, the last place I'd expect to see it is on Fox News. Each media outlet has bias, as they are human institutions, of which all are proan. Online probably being the least (though certain websites have bias of course but as a whole entity it is diverse in opinion). The fact of the matter is is that media is dying from an exponential decay, news travels faster, people are increasingly willing to fetch it themselves, and by the time the printers print and the flapper-mouths talk... the news is olds. And this is why most of the neutral middle ground statement of facts has turned into a reactionary partition opinion free for all spin zone. It keeps a target audience who enjoys that particular spin in.