Monday
21Jul
NYTimes to McCain: Rewrite!
Monday, July 21, 2008 at 23:58There's a contretemps between the New York Times and the McCain campaign, with an op-ed column in the middle.
The Times rejected the column submitted by the campaign, suggesting changes via email; the campaign simply released the Times' email and the "rejected" column to the press. (McCain's column can be read here; Obama's can be read here.) In its request for a rewrite, the Times made specific suggestions:
In the e-mail, released by McCain's campaign, Shipley wrote that McCain's article would "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."
In defending its actions, the Times suggests that this sort of back-and-forth is typical of guest columns:
"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. We look forward to publishing Sen. McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past."
The campaign, as might be expected, did not take kindly to editorial suggestion:
"John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables," he said. "Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times."At first glance, I thought the Times' editorial suggestions somewhat extreme. As I consider it further, though, I think that we have to ask two questions:
- Is this truly "standard procedure" with guest writers? While we wouldn't expect a guest writer to work in a typical writer/editor relationship, neither would we expect a paper to give carte blanche for anything a guest might choose to submit. (Can you picture an unedited column from International "they're all fascists" ANSWER or Michael "autistic kids are faking it" Savage? Ecch.) I would think it fair to ask what editorial discussion went back-and-forth on Obama's column and other guest op-eds by political figures.
- What, specifically, were the candidates asked to provide? If they were asked to provide their "plan for Iraq and Afghanistan," then I do see a clear difference between the two columns. Obama did take his shots against McCain, to be sure, but he provided new information and a clear plan; McCain's column, on the other hand, takes a shot at Obama in every paragraph save the first; he also failed (as I read it) to provide any sort of tangible plan other than (and I paraphrase) 'most of them home by the end of my first term.'
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (11)
"Op-ed pages are for debate, but if you get only one side, that’s not debate. And that’s not healthy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/opinion/24pubed.html?ex=1340337600&en=ab20d46826ed6524&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
That was the NYTimes' public editor defending the paper's decision to run an op-ed/propaganda from a Hamas spokesman.
Mach;
In the pecking order at the NYT, Republicans are lower than Hamas. They would give an unedited full-page opinion piece to OBL before John McCain. This is the paper that outs innocent Americans who interview KSM but raises a tizzy over a wannabe Vanity Fair model/desk jockey at the CIA. I'll tell you, in ten years or less the NYT is done. The NYT may reside in one of the largest media centers in the world but it's on a death spiral. I can't wait.
Thomas, the NYTimes has published at least seven op-eds by McCain since 1998.
Machiavelli, I note that (in the article you provided) the Times' public editor made it a point to say that the editorial page folks should have done better "gatekeeping" with the op-ed on veganism. They apparently tried (even if poorly) to do that in McCain's case.
I think that that Times went too far with its editorial approach, but do you think it should be "we'll print whatever you write?"
The coordinated media propaganda blitz against McCain would make the old management at the Kremlin blush. By November, the media will turn John McCain's record in Vietnam into a war criminal. I hope he wasn't any where near Mai Lai.
Thomas, I'm calling you on this one. Please give us examples of this "coordinated media propaganda blitz."
Wes;
You don't think the NYT rejecting McCain editorials that are rebuttals to Obama attacks, all three networks news-heads plus cable outlets covering Obama's overseas trip is an inside media beltway effort to ignore McCain? Please don't say either that John McCain hasn't done anything news worthy or Obama's Middle East visit is "historic." That's hooey on both fronts. Are there emails flying around between CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WashPO, LA Times coordinating this stuff. Not likely. There doesn't have to be because a long time ago the media lib-sychophants were in for Obama and McCain doesn't have a chance at some balanced coverage unless one of supporters calls someone a whiner. I saw a recent figure that nearly 70% of the media that centers on the 2008 election is reporting on Obama and McCain gets the the other 30%. Fair and balanced for sure.
Wes, I'm sure from your perspective this all seems fair and there is no bias. Rosie is fond of calling corporate media in-bed for McCain. Yet none of us can seem to find that media outside of a few blogs.
I don't know about that, Thomas. In no particular order:
1) When I turned on my TV last night, I saw coverage of Obama's trip, followed immediately by coverage of McCain's latest town-hall meeting on the economy. That's the pattern I see in most routine news broadcasts; sometimes McCain is first, sometimes Obama, but it's usually a "what the candidates did today" report on both of them.
2) When the NYTimes headline on Obama's trip reads "A First Step, Not A Misstep," I see a presumption--in that "not a misstep"--that he would screw up somehow. In addition, it's factually incorrect in that this isn't his "first step;" he went to Iraq in 2006 and met with President Talibani. Given these observations, which way is the bias leaning?
3) I'd like to see the source for your 70/30 figures. That doesn't seem to jibe with my observations, but I'd like to see what they sampled to reach their conclusions.
4) As far as the McCain op-ed is concerned, here's the last sentence of my original post:
I know that we don't agree very often, but give me credit when we do, eh? (grin)5) Do you think that Obama's trip is getting more coverage than did McCain's Baghdad-market trip? I'll also point out that McCain kept his most recent visit (at least, I think it was his most recent) secret, even from the press; I don't think you can blame them for not covering something they didn't know about.
6) Given the number of McCain's statements/misstatements/gaffes that have NOT been reported by the traditional media in any detail ("Iraq-Pakistan border," "I never said that" about his economic knowledge, the "I'm not going to debate that" town-hall response to his voting record on veterans' issues, the "I certainly don't want to discuss that" response on health insurance and birth control...I could go on), how can you turn around and say that they're providing unbalanced coverage? If they were truly the Obama attack dogs that you seem to suggest, wouldn't they be ALL over those gaffes?
In closing, I'll say what I've said for a very long time. At the end of the day, the media's only real bias is toward sensationalism. They will report on almost ANYTHING that grabs eyeballs and sells ads, regardless of the source or the subject.
Son, there is no forest out there I only see trees.
If that's the case, I recommend taking a few steps back and seeing the big picture. (grin)
Wes, in your private moments I'm sure you see the glaring and blatant leftist bias of The New York Times. If we need a rehash of some of the lowlights, I'm sure we can find a few thousand.
Hey, Redbeard, I agreed that they went too far with the op-ed "suggestions." Sure, they lean left, but I don't think it's as "glaring and blatant" as you believe it to be.
Quite frankly, "glaring and blatant" would be playing every McCain gaffe on Page One while ignoring Obama's entirely. "Glaring and blatant" would be accepting Obama's proposals wholeheartedly, instead of printing articles skeptical of his healthcare policy (as they did just today). Heck, they even printed an article on McCain's attack against them (the video you posted here today).
In this case, you look at what they cover and see bias, while I look at what they don't cover and see bias. On another issue, our positions would be reversed. The truth is somewhere in between.