Bias-NYT rejects McCains editorial after publishing Obama's editorial last month

[Jeremiah]

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.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'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.'

MORE

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.]

MORE

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.'

MORE

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.'

"Developing...



The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

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 am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies."

http://drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm

[philbob]

you what i like Obama prolly wont vote for him but i LOAVE his supporters who do not belive in free speach or fairness

[kamaz]

you what i like Obama prolly wont vote for him but i LOAVE his supporters who do not belive in free speach or fairness

I dont believe in free speach either. How does one 'loave' someone?

[brainplay]

Think he means "loathe". And yes the Obamamaniacs have been pretty fickle about double standards.

[philbob]

Think he means "loathe". And yes the Obamamaniacs have been pretty fickle about double standards.

thankyou:)

[noname]

I dont believe in free speach either.


Good for you komrade.




Also this is on Drudge. This will get more exposure than the NYTs and it will show the media bias. LOL dumbassholes at NYTs.

[akd]

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.'

*Fingers in ears* "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"


Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies."

[philbob]

Good for you komrade.




Also this is on Drudge. This will get more exposure than the NYTs and it will show the media bias. LOL dumbassholes at NYTs.

and it will spark debate on the news shows

[Invisigoth]

rofl Republicans whining about Media bias, that's a good one.

[SoftLion]

Hmm - Republican biased media you are intimating?

[loganinkosovo]

Good for you komrade.




Also this is on Drudge. This will get more exposure than the NYTs and it will show the media bias. LOL dumbassholes at NYTs.


Now you know why the New Pravda Times is on the skids and a c**t hair away from bankruptcy. :)

[Jobu]

Does it really help the NYT's claims of fairness when their Op-Ed editor is a former Clinton administration member?

[Zoomie]

Does it really help the NYT's claims of fairness when their Op-Ed editor is a former Clinton administration member?

Not just that but they themselves said that it's dangerous to have a one-sided debates:

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.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/opinion/24pubed.html?ex=1340337600&en=ab20d46826ed6524&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

[helomech]

rofl Republicans whining about Media bias, that's a good one.

?

Everyone knows that the majority of main stream media outlets are left leaning,some more open about it than others;it's good to see a rag like the NYT caught with their pants down on their refusal to run a rebuttal from a Republican candidate to a Democratic candidate-it shows their flagrant biased opinion.Those who report the news are supposed to be neither left or right leaning in their reporting of said news,only show the facts.I know,I know it doesn't work that way in reality

News organizations should be neutral

[duhblow7]

you what i like Obama prolly wont vote for him but i LOAVE his supporters who do not belive in free speach or fairness

Free speech does not guarantee you have a platform. I read McCain's opt-ed.

It sounds like you're complaining more about the bias of NYT. That's like complaining about the Tank being biased or MSNBC being biased or Fox News being biased.

And now for my opinion; McCain's editorial was riposte to Obama, rather than his own ideas as NYT said in their response. It was almost an attack piece with the word "Obama" appearing 10 times and referring to him with a ****oun another 19 times.

Obama referred to McCain three times, and as a ****oun another 3 times.

I think i've mentioned a couple other times in this forum that what bothers me about the (R) is that it always seems to be an attack at the opposition instead of trumpeting their own ideas. I know it would be naive of me to believe that politics are not played out this way by both sides, but time and time again it seems the (R)'s modus operandi is to attack.

[duhblow7]

Does it really help the NYT's claims of fairness when their Op-Ed editor is a former Clinton administration member?

Same as it helps Fox News to have one of their anchors become the White House press secretary, or have Karl Rove become a commentator.

[Jobu]

I think i've mentioned a couple other times in this forum that what bothers me about the (R) is that it always seems to be an attack at the opposition instead of trumpeting their own ideas. I know it would be naive of me to believe that politics are not played out this way by both sides, but time and time again it seems the (R)'s modus operandi is to attack.


Because the left have not been attacking Bush for the last 8 years?

*cough* hypocritical bull**** *cough*

[Jobu]

Same as it helps Fox News to have one of their anchors become the White House press secretary, or have Karl Rove become a commentator.


Is Karl Rove the news editor?
No? Then it's not even close to being the same thing. Try again.

[Zoomie]

Same as it helps Fox News to have one of their anchors become the White House press secretary, or have Karl Rove become a commentator.
*yawns* What a useless point. What about George Stephanopolus and other people from Clinton's staff going on to other news networks?

[duhblow7]

Because the left have not been attacking Bush for the last 8 years?

*cough* hypocritical bull**** *cough*

I tried very hard to structure that paragraph to demonstrate a comparison between the frequency in which it happens and how, to me, it seems to happen much more frequently for the (R). I even supported that claim with a count of the mention of the opposition from the recent opt-eds.

/me shrugs

[duhblow7]

*yawns* What a useless point. What about George Stephanopolus and other people from Clinton's staff going on to other news networks?


IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME. I was just pointing out the kettle calling the pot black.

[duhblow7]

*yawns* What a useless point. What about George Stephanopolus and other people from Clinton's staff going on to other news networks?



Is Karl Rove the news editor?
No? Then it's not even close to being the same thing. Try again.

If you go up the chain 10 links above the news editor you'll find a fellow named Rupert Murdoch who does not hide his political affiliation.

You'd be naive to believe that Rupert wouldn't use his influence to "shape" reporting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K2pLo8JV5Y

to be clear, it happens on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Jobu]

No, it's not exactly the same.

Karl Rove is on FOX as a commentator. There is no illusion of him being impartial when he is brought on. He's there to give his opinion and be as biased as everyone expects him to be.

Stephanopoulos is at ABC as an anchor and sometimes as a moderator in debates and as such is masquerading as an impartial observer which of course is bull****. If he were brought on as a commentator there'd be no problem.

[duhblow7]

No, it's not exactly the same.

Karl Rove is on FOX as a commentator. There is no illusion of him being impartial when he is brought on. He's there to give his opinion and be as biased as everyone expects him to be.

Stephanopoulos is at ABC as an anchor and sometimes as a moderator in debates and as such is masquerading as an impartial observer which of course is bull****. If he were brought on as a commentator there'd be no problem.

You take any two scenarios and analyze them enough and it'll be apples vs oranges.

But if you look at biased or the biasedness of news organizations in GENERAL it's hard to find any that don't lean one way or the other; albeit because of the owners, commenatators, anchors, etc.

These situations may not be exactly the same but they sure as sh!t are similar.

[Jmetal]

Anyone have a link to Obama's Op-Ed, so we can compare the two?

[duhblow7]

Jobu,

Let me take a second to also say that although I disagree politically with a lot of members on this forum I respect and enjoy reading the opinion of "the opposition". Specifically; today when i read about somebody calling NYT or MSNBC biased, I put myself in their shoes. To them MSNBC or NYT is like Fox News is to me. You may or may not agree with that statement but i use that mindset to allow myself to empathize and gain an understanding of where you're coming from. Geographically i do not get to see through the eyes of the (R)ight and MP.net lets me do so. When i say something on there that i know is going to give me a lot of backlash i do not just say "oh that's bull****" but i try to support it with facts and try to get a reply debunking my facts. I may disagree with what you use to debunk, but it allows me into the mindset of that person. That's what i am really interested. I'm a (D) so i know what makes a D tick. What makes an (R) tick?

I see that NYT and MSNBC is consistently biased, and once in a while they will throw somebody/something on there to try to make it look more balanced. But how can somebody from the other side not see those same qualities in Fox News is surprising to me.

[duhblow7]

Anyone have a link to Obama's Op-Ed, so we can compare the two?

McCain:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html

Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

[Jobu]

Jobu,

Let me take a second to also say that although I disagree politically with a lot of members on this forum I respect and enjoy reading the opinion of "the opposition". Specifically; today when i read about somebody calling NYT or MSNBC biased, I put myself in their shoes. To them MSNBC or NYT is like Fox News is to me. You may or may not agree with that statement but i use that mindset to allow myself to empathize and gain an understanding of where you're coming from. Geographically i do not get to see through the eyes of the (R)ight and MP.net lets me do so. When i say something on there that i know is going to give me a lot of backlash i do not just say "oh that's bull****" but i try to support it with facts and try to get a reply debunking my facts. I may disagree with what you use to debunk, but it allows me into the mindset of that person. That's what i am really interested. I'm a (D) so i know what makes a D tick. What makes an (R) tick?

I see that NYT and MSNBC is consistently biased, and once in a while they will throw somebody/something on there to try to make it look more balanced. But how can somebody from the other side not see those same qualities in Fox News is surprising to me.



FOX is biased. I'm pretty sure a vast majority of people, R and D, admit it. The "bull****" comes into play when you make statements such as "maybe the D's do it once in a while but the R's MO is to attack" which of course is pure baloney. The past 8 years of attacks on Bush are evidence enough that's it's BS.

Nor is a rebuttal piece an attack. It's a rebuttal. Did you expect McCain to write a rebuttal without mentioning the person he's responding to?

[duhblow7]

FOX is biased. I'm pretty sure a vast majority of people, R and D, admit it. The "bull****" comes into play when you make statements such as "maybe the D's do it once in a while but the R's MO is to attack" which of course is pure baloney. The past 8 years of attacks on Bush are evidence enough that's it's BS.

Nor is a rebuttal piece an attack. It's a rebuttal. Did you expect McCain to write a rebuttal without mentioning the person he's responding to?


fair enough.

"maybe the D's do it once in a while but the R's MO is to attack"

Perhaps it's because since I sit on this side of the spectrum I notice it more and vice versa for you but I stand by that comment.

I haven't yet been able to eloquently articulate the differences in mentality between a D and R as I see it. When I find the right words I'll throw together my own editorial (maybe i'll email NYT and they can deny me some free speach) and perhaps I'll PM it to you. ;)

[helomech]

Fox News-Right leaning
Every other news channel-Left leaning

[usmcprincipal]

[QUOTE=duhblow7;3405769]Free speech does not guarantee you have a platform. I read McCain's opt-ed.

And now for my opinion; McCain's editorial was riposte to Obama, rather than his own ideas as NYT said in their response. It was almost an attack piece with the word "Obama" appearing 10 times and referring to him with a ****oun another 19 times.

Obama referred to McCain three times, and as a ****oun another 3 times.

QUOTE]

As I understand it the primary rationale for the NYT not publishing McCain's Op-Ed had to do with McCain not offering definitive timelines for troop withdrawal from Iraq, which McCain refused to provide.

For me, the concern is the NYT editioral board demanding McCain provide something he has studiously avoided in his campaign, and which significantly differentiates him from his opponent. In effect, NYT seems to be trying to influence a foreign policy statement made by a presidential candidate, while using the leverage of an Op-Ed to do so.

[WarDancer]

Fox News-Right leaning
Every other news channel-Left leaning

Actually, Fox news is centrist in its reporting. The problem is that the "main stream' media is sooo left leaning that anything else is considered "right wing". Actually if you bother to watch Fox news they have more liberals on the show than other news programs. I can mention Alan Colmes, Geraldo Rivera, Van Gretchen or what ever her name is.

Fox News practice is to invite libs to counter arguments from the conservative side, but the libs, knowing they really cant stand up to tough questions, usually refuse to appear.

[duhblow7]

As I understand it the primary rationale for the NYT not publishing McCain's Op-Ed had to do with McCain not offering definitive timelines for troop withdrawal from Iraq, which McCain refused to provide.

For me, the concern is the NYT editioral board demanding McCain provide something he has studiously avoided in his campaign, and which significantly differentiates him from his opponent. In effect, NYT seems to be trying to influence a foreign policy statement made by a presidential candidate, while using the leverage of an Op-Ed to do so.In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be “pleased, though, to look at another draft.”
“Let me suggest an approach,” he wrote. “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. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece.”

emphasis mine. i took that as a slight swipe towards what i was insinuating earlier; that McCain's editorial was a riposte to Obama's and that NYT wasn't going to become a platform for the candidates to have an equivelent of a thread war.

i found this interesting; because we all know that wikipedia is the end all for any definition of a word:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial#Editorial_guidelines


Editorials are generally printed either on their own page of a newspaper or in a clearly marked-off column, and are always labeled as editorials (to avoid confusion with news coverage). They often address current events or public controversies. Generally, editorials fall into four broad types: news, policy, social, and special. When covering controversial topics such as election issues, some opinion page editors will run "dueling" editorials, with each staking out a respective side of the issue.

[Jmetal]

McCain:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html

Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print


Thanks DB.

Having read both Op-Eds, I see no problem with McCain's rebuttal here. Several times Obama attacks McCain's directly or indirectly. McCain rebuts those attacks and works in several of his own.

Isn't that how a debate is supposed to work?

[duhblow7]

Thanks DB.

Having read both Op-Eds, I see no problem with McCain's rebuttal here. Several times Obama attacks McCain's directly or indirectly. McCain rebuts those attacks and works in several of his own.

Isn't that how a debate is supposed to work?

Yah, that's how debates work. NYT says that's not how editorial sections work though.

It would be neat to see an opt-ed from both candidates on the same subject printed the same day, so it doesn't become a "he said, she said" ordeal.

[BearInBunnySuit]

I'm not a McCain supporter, nor a Republican but I work in the media, and this just rubs me the wrong way.

1. McCain does not work for NYT
2. He was writing for the op-ed page
3. All the newspaper had to do was to include a disclaimer saying McCain's views do not reflect the NYT's position.
4. How can a rebuttal or a response fit a specific formula?
5. And are the requirements universally known to everyone?

Newspapers and media organizations freak out if there is the slightest hint that someone is trying to influence an article or a report and here is the NYT pulling the same stunt. I'm really disappointed.

[Winger]

I'm not a McCain supporter, nor a Republican but I work in the media, and this just rubs me the wrong way.

1. McCain does not work for NYT
2. He was writing for the op-ed page
3. All the newspaper had to do was to include a disclaimer saying McCain's views do not reflect the NYT's position.
4. How can a rebuttal or a response fit a specific formula?
5. And are the requirements universally known to everyone?

Newspapers and media organizations freak out if there is the slightest hint that someone is trying to influence an article or a report and here is the NYT pulling the same stunt. I'm really disappointed.

Same here. Only thing I ever like about the NYT was their photographers. Thats about it.

[noname]

Newspapers and media organizations freak out if there is the slightest hint that someone is trying to influence an article or a report and here is the NYT pulling the same stunt. I'm really disappointed.

LOL. Yeah CNN, MSNBC NBC, CBS, all are non-biased and have journalistic integrity down to a fine science.

Same goes for Fox.

Get real. The media on whichever side of the aisle is filled with some of the most vile cretons(not saying you are one of the bearinabunnysuit) who try to influence public opinion through their use of headlines, story selection (AP, *******, etc.) and no-name editorials.p-)

[gobdav]

God, all I want is a news agency that reports actual news, with no bias....that's all I want! I'm sick of all this crap that's coming out. The headlines from the last 2 weeks from AP alone want to make me puke.

[BearInBunnySuit]

LOL. Yeah CNN, MSNBC NBC, CBS, all are non-biased and have journalistic integrity down to a fine science.

Same goes for Fox.

Get real. The media on whichever side of the aisle is filled with some of the most vile cretons(not saying you are one of the bearinabunnysuit) who try to influence public opinion through their use of headlines, story selection (AP, *******, etc.) and no-name editorials.p-)

Oh, I am not denying that media organizations have biases and try to weave their views into their stories. What I find hypocritical is a newspaper telling someone --a person not on its payroll--how to write his op-ed piece and the possible reaction from the editorial staff if the situation was reversed.

Having said that, some of my best friends are reporters. :-D

[brainplay]

If you go up the chain 10 links above the news editor you'll find a fellow named Geroge Soros who does not hide his political affiliation.

You'd be naive to believe that Soros wouldn't use his influence to "shape" reporting.

There now its fixed. Yes, this kind of stuff happens on both sides. However, the left had a stranglehold on the media until Fox news was developed and started showing things from a conservative point of view. What Fox did better was that they would frequently has counterpoint views brought in for both the left and the right along with fluff to keep viewers of all interests tuned in. What ironic is that the left HATES the concept of a popular conservative media outlet as it infringes on them and frequently have to bash on it despite them following in suite. The Washington Post got its own counterpoint Murdoch bought it off and made it profitable again.

Heh, when are we going to ever see something balanced on National Public Radio?

The point of the article though is that the NYT didn't even try and be subtle about this. And its not the first time they've pulled this kind of junk. They may or may not backpedal on this depending on how big of an uproar there is.

[gobdav]

I find it pretty ironic at the absolute level of hate displayed by MANY people towards FOX news. It's at the point that you can even mention the word to some people and they'll automatically start foaming.

Fox is the spotlight on Gremlins everywhere.

[Winger]

McCain should just publish his article in the Wall Street Journal.

[gobdav]

McCain should just publish his article in the Wall Street Journal.


He should, but is that the point of the whole thing? When The People continually accept a general bias from the places they rely on to get their news, they will open themselves up to outright propaganda and lies.

At what point in the information pyramid does fact get replaced with opinion? Is it gradually after the fact, or as soon as the "fact" happens? Or worse, before the fact happens? And as soon as the opinions get mixed in with the facts, how farther up the pyramid does it take to get exaggerated?

[philbob]

no need it got published for free on drudge and now the entire world has another and clear example of bias in the media...i want to support Obama but what his supporters do really boil my blood and that makes me want to side with McCain

[gobdav]

no need it got published for free on drudge and now the entire world has another and clear example of bias in the media...i want to support Obama but what his supporters do really boil my blood and that makes me want to side with McCain


Kind of makes one wonder what the media will do if he gets elected....What failures will be glossed over, and what success will be over-emphasized...

[steelfury]

Love how obama supporters and his proxies..ie NYT love to say how open and fair they are, but alot of their actions are just this side of fascist.

[loganinkosovo]

Love how obama supporters and his proxies..ie NYT love to say how open and fair they are, but alot of their actions are just this side of fascist.


Yes. The most closed minded son of a B!tch in the world is the one who proclaims to anyone and everyone who will listen just how "Open minded" they are. That is why Liberals run around claiming they are so "Open minded".

[loganinkosovo]

God, all I want is a news agency that reports actual news, with no bias....that's all I want! I'm sick of all this crap that's coming out. The headlines from the last 2 weeks from AP alone want to make me puke.


http://www.dvidshub.net/

[loganinkosovo]

no need it got published for free on drudge and now the entire world has another and clear example of bias in the media...i want to support Obama but what his supporters do really boil my blood and that makes me want to side with McCain

Go for it!

Just think of McCain as Obama with more experience, integrity, dignity, brains, guts, skill, backbone and a real foreign policy.

:)

[gobdav]

http://www.dvidshub.net/


interestingly, it doesn't work...

[Buckeye67]

interestingly, it doesn't work...

Works for me. /shrug

[gobdav]

Works for me. /shrug


must be my computer. thanks for the link though.

EDIT: It's up now. Must have been down when I looked at it earlier.