N.Y. Times rejects McCain opinion piece

Felicity · 07-21-08, 07:34 PM

What's the deal with the Times not printing McCain's op ed?

DeeJayH · 07-21-08, 07:35 PM

shhhhhhhhhhh there is no left wing media bias

Felicity · 07-21-08, 07:44 PM

Love the reasoning...

DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2008®

...As if Obama sets the gold standard....

It's becoming so much more obvious--I swear many are near not even denying the bias!

DeeJayH · 07-21-08, 07:48 PM

i really like how the decision maker disappears

Quote:

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

talk about dumb luck

Felicity · 07-21-08, 07:49 PM

oh..

...I wondered why no-one was talking about this--

I found a thread already discussing it (but only after I posted mine)--ignore THIS thread and go here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-ele...ror-obama.html (NYT Rejects Mccain's Editorial; Should 'mirror' Obama)

talloulou · 07-21-08, 08:10 PM

To be fair people who read the NYT aren't interested in McCain.

aps · 07-22-08, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talloulou

To be fair people who read the NYT aren't interested in McCain.

Not to mention the fact that he is BORING!

PeteEU · 07-22-08, 06:27 AM

So the NYT rejects McCain's op ed. I did no know it was a requirement by private companies to do what ever a presidential candidate tells them to do... or is that just a rule for Republican candidates?

donsutherland1 · 07-22-08, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteEU

So the NYT rejects McCain's op ed. I did no know it was a requirement by private companies to do what ever a presidential candidate tells them to do... or is that just a rule for Republican candidates?

Pete,

While you are correct that The New York Times and any other private media organization can freely refuse to publish various content, the media also plays an important role in providing information necessary for the functioning of a democratic free society. In part, that essential function led to the press's gaining express protection in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Publication of the candidates' occasional op-ed pieces constitutes an invaluable public service. It gives the public a chance to better understand the candidates and their positions on the issues in the candidates' own unvarnished language.

In short, I believe the newspaper erred in its decision from a public service standpoint. Furthermore, in doing so, it fueled perceptions of partiality that are now being broadcast widely in the U.S. Such perceptions do not enhance its journalistic reputation.

PeteEU · 07-22-08, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Pete,

While you are correct that The New York Times and any other private media organization can freely refuse to publish various content, the media also plays an important role in providing information necessary for the functioning of a democratic free society. In part, that essential function led to the press's gaining express protection in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Publication of the candidates' occasional op-ed pieces constitutes an invaluable public service. It gives the public a chance to better understand the candidates and their positions on the issues in the candidates' own unvarnished language.

In short, I believe the newspaper erred in its decision from a public service standpoint. Furthermore, in doing so, it fueled perceptions of partiality that are now being broadcast widely in the U.S. Such perceptions do not enhance its journalistic reputation.

I don't disagree at all. But facts are facts. NYT has every right not to publish McCain's op-ed piece and its not like McCain has had op-ed pieces in the NYT before.. something like 7 the last 12 years. Does it show some bias? Well, considering the right wingers have been defending Fox News and others obvious bias, as coming from "opinion journalists" or "op-ed" pieces, then this must go under the same category.. as not being biased.

If people are suppose to be in uproar over this, then why are the same people not in uproar over the "terrorist fist jab" and other comments from right wing media outlets? What's worse.. not posting an op-ed or attempting to link a candidate to terrorists?