NY Times red pencils McCain’s opinion
I read it first at Little Green Footballs and then clicked over to Drudge to read the whole thing, and it’s pretty startling. It seems that the New York Times is now rejecting people’s opinions based on style issues. Obama’s opinion piece a few weeks ago in the Times is apparently the style guide.
‘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.’
Let me ask this question of the NYT’s editors…how do you think you can get away with presenting one politician’s opinion and then dictating to another what his rebuttal will be?
NYT’s Shipley advised McCain to try again: ‘I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.’
I’d be damned if I ever gave the New York Times anything that’d be beneficial to their traffic or their circulation, if I were John McCain – but he probably will.
The Times says they want “new information” to publish. Well, how about this line from McCain’s piece;
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.
It must all be new information because Obama doesn’t know it – or the American public doesn’t know it and Obama is lying to them.
Of course the Times doesn’t want to have to publish this, it makes them look bad…but not as bad as they look because of this rejection notice. I guess they figured that McCain wouldn’t tell the rest of the planet about the New York Times trying to deceive the American public.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, John McCain/Sarah Palin, Media, Politics
Let the lefties at the New York Slimes keep on shooting themselves in the foot. They’re proving to all without a shadow of a doubt their leftist bias.
Screw the Slimes! I posted John McCain’s rebuttal of Obama’s “My Plan for Iraq” in RochesterConservative.com:
John McCain’s Editorial that was Rejected by the New York Slimes
We don’t need the lefty MSM spoon feeding us the news and opinion anymore, we can bypass their a$$! 🙂
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 07/21/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
OOPs, must have been an html error. Let’s try this again:
John McCain’s Editorial that was Rejected by the New York Slimes
Well, isn’t the New York Times just so special? How nice of them to explain what it is they’re looking for in a a piece, otherwise how would a person know what to write that would “fit” in with what the NYT wants.
Can you say nasty, arrogant _______ !!
I don’t know. From what I understand, the first rule in printing editorials is to state your own views, not just attack another person’s viewpoint. It seems McCain spent the bulk of his time attacking Obama rather than professing his own views. If that’s the case, then I see nothing wrong with the Times’ decision.
On the other hand, it could turn out to be a political coup for McCain, especially when you consider Drudge probably boasts more readership than the sinking NY Times. The negative coverage the Times is bound to receive for failing to run McCain’s editorial will turn into positive coverage in other places (and not just Drudge’s website).
Jonn report: Ref; If that’s the case, then I see nothing wrong with the Times’ decision. This is me expressing shock. What part of “opinion” is it that you don’t understand? Funny how pointing out Obama’s faults is considered an attack by the intellectually vacant Left.
That’s not what I meant, Jonn.
Denouncing someone else’s opinion is not the same thing as expressing your own, that’s what I was getting at. Personally, I could care less about both candidate’s opinions…and what differences exist between Obama and McCain are merely cosmetic!
And I’m no leftist!
Jonn wrote: The only differences between you and a leftist are cosmetic.
Eddie said:
It seems McCain spent the bulk of his time attacking Obama rather than professing his own views. If that’s the case, then I see nothing wrong with the Times’ decision.
Sure you see no problem with the Times decision to exclude a commentary challenging the Obamessiah. Typical lefty double-standard!
That’s exactly what Obama did in his editorial. He slammed both Bush and McCain. When one is the Obamessiah, his editorial will get the print of that failing fish-wrapper, known as the New York Times, he’s elevated by his acolytes above the rest… and the rest of us see through all the leftist propaganda. We’re no under his spell. Obama is more of the same from the left, radical/socialist with many Marxist friends and supporters and let’s not forget his black liberation racist/Marxist theology supporters as well.