NYTimes Rejects McCain Op/Ed

[Pangloss]

The New York Times has apparently rejected an op/ed piece by Republican candidate John McCain, after running a similar op/ed by Democratic candidate Barack Obama on July 14th. The Obama piece attracted some comment last week over its suggestion of a 16 month timeline for departure from Iraq.

 

The 7/14 Obama piece can be found here.

 

Times editor David Shipley (as quoted in the two articles linked below) says he rejected the piece because it wasn't substantive, saying in part:

 

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. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.

 

But renowned media analyst Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, commenting in a blog piece that can be found here calls that a "pretty high bar", and even the widely-seen-as-liberal LA Times, in a blog post today, suggests that that water mark may be a bit unfair:

 

Shipley may have been on slippery ground in touting the "new information" that Obama had provided; little leaps out in a rereading. Indeed, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee introduced several of his specifics with these phrases: "As I've said many times," and "As I have often said."

 

But the right-wing bloggers are, of course, going nuts, and apparently even the McCain people are getting into it. (sigh)

 

In my opinion the Times has the right to reject whatever it wants. But they should have run this piece regardless of what it says. This is a special situation, not a normal op/ed situation, and they should not be sticking their noses into it on the editorial level. The idea that the integrity of the paper is at stake is pretty silly. I don't think it's liberal censorship, but I do think he stuck his nose in where it doesn't belong.

 

My two bits, anyway. What do you all think?

[D H]

The idea that the integrity of the paper is at stake is pretty silly.

The idea of the New York Times having any claims to integrity is akin to a porn star having any claims to virginity.

[iNow]

In my opinion the Times has the right to reject whatever it wants. But they should have run this piece regardless of what it says. This is a special situation, not a normal op/ed situation, and they should not be sticking their noses into it on the editorial level.

Pangloss, can you please tell me what exactly you think "Op-Ed" stands for?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-Ed

 

 

Also, I'd like to be able to read the McCain piece before deciding whether or not it should or should not have been rejected by the editorial staff of the NYTimes.

[Sisyphus]

"Op-ed" stands for "opposite editorial," meaning only that it's traditionally on the page opposite the editorials. It is an opinion piece by an individual who may or may not have any connection with the paper.

 

Anyway, I can see both sides of this. They're not obligated to (and shouldn't) print whatever they are sent, even from a presidential candidate. That would just be essentially free campaign ads. They should print every substantive statement of position or rationale behind it. And so, of course, it is the editor's call whether a given piece is a suitable op-ed, and they're free (and obligated) to reject whatever they honestly deem is not.

 

On the other hand, if McCain intended it to be a direct counterpoint to an Obama op-ed, even if it did fail to adequately address the issues, it probably should have been printed anyway. If he wants to screw up his chance to explain himself, he should be allowed to, and people can judge for themselves.

 

Maybe a better solution to satisfy both sides would have been to print the op-ed, accompanied by an editorial noting what it fails to address.

[iNow]

Maybe a better solution to satisfy both sides would have been to print the op-ed, accompanied by an editorial noting what it fails to address.

 

That's a very smart idea, Sisyphus. I like it a lot.

[Pangloss]

You can read the McCain piece, actually. As Howard Kurtz put it in the article I linked above, when the Times rejected the McCain piece on editorial grounds, the McCain people had a choice -- they could re-write it to make it acceptable, submit it to another paper, or drop it and howl to the Drudge report. They chose the third option, which says something unfortunate in my book.

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm

 

Oh well. Anyway, in answer to iNow's question above, what I was trying to say (perhaps poorly) is that I normally would support the Times' desire to have op/ed pieces meet their editorial standards (whatever they happen to be). It's their paper, they should make sure such pieces rise to the level of the Great Grey Lady, no question about it. (IMO DH is just plain wrong.)

 

But an exception should be made in this case, for two reasons: 1) It's best if you let the candidates speak for themselves, and 2) giving somebody enough rope to hang themselves is a perfectly acceptable journalistic practice. In short, if McCain wrote garbage, the New York Times will not be sullying its image if it shows us that garbage in all its stinking splendor.

 

This just isn't an appropriate time for a professor to tell a student that their work is unacceptable. And I don't think it's a mistake that that's how this is playing out.

[bascule]

You can read the McCain piece, actually. As Howard Kurtz put it in the article I linked above, when the Times rejected the McCain piece on editorial grounds, the McCain people had a choice -- they could re-write it to make it acceptable, submit it to another paper, or drop it and howl to the Drudge report. They chose the third option, which says something unfortunate in my book.

 

That's quite odd... I'd think somewhere like the Wall Street Journal would be happy to run it... quite odd (and almost hilarious) that he'd just go straight to the Drudge Report.

[D H]

Maybe a better solution to satisfy both sides would have been to print the op-ed, accompanied by an editorial noting what it fails to address.

That wouldn't work, as it would expose the bias of the New York Times for all to see.

 

As Howard Kurtz put it in the article I linked above, when the Times rejected the McCain piece on editorial grounds, the McCain people had a choice -- they could re-write it to make it acceptable, submit it to another paper, or drop it and howl to the Drudge report. They chose the third option, which says something unfortunate in my book.

The first option was deemed unacceptable because the New York Times essentially wanted a timetable, per multiple spokespeople for the McCain campaign. They chose the third option because they thought they could get better publicity that way. Apparently it has worked; an opinion piece typically gets little coverage while this has gotten a lot of coverage.

It's their paper, they should make sure such pieces rise to the level of the Great Grey Lady, no question about it. (IMO DH is just plain wrong.)

Wrong? In what way? I did not say the Times should have published the piece. They can publish whatever they want. I merely opined that the Times has about that same claim to integrity that a porn star has to virginity.

[Pangloss]

They chose the third option because they thought they could get better publicity that way. Apparently it has worked; an opinion piece typically gets little coverage while this has gotten a lot of coverage.

 

Sure it worked. And two wrongs don't make a right. He chose to howl at the Drudge Report, of all places.

 

Whatever this event says about the New York Times, it also says something about the McCain campaign.

 

 

Wrong? In what way? I did not say the Times should have published the piece. They can publish whatever they want. I merely opined that the Times has about that same claim to integrity that a porn star has to virginity.

 

Wrong in opining that the New York Times "having any claims to integrity is akin to a porn star having any claims to virginity". I respect your opinion; I was simply stating mine to the contrary.

[waitforufo]

That's quite odd... I'd think somewhere like the Wall Street Journal would be happy to run it... quite odd (and almost hilarious) that he'd just go straight to the Drudge Report.

 

Do you have any evidence the McCain or is campaign went "straight to the Drudge Report" with is Op/Ed after it was rejected by the NYT. Perhaps he or his campaign just made the Op/Ed generally available to the media. If he did make his Op/Ed generally available, would it be surprising that the Drudge Report would be the first to provide it on the web. I think not. The Drudge Report seems to be obsessed with being first. Many news organizations made the Op/Ed available the same day it was rejected by the NYT.

[bascule]

Do you have any evidence the McCain or is campaign went "straight to the Drudge Report"

 

No? I was just responding to Pangloss. I'm sorry if my post was *boggle* offensively worded...

[doG]

Times editor David Shipley (as quoted in the two articles linked below) says he rejected the piece because it wasn't substantive, saying in part:

 

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. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate.

 

IOW the Times is saying the only pieces it will publish concerning Iraq are those that include troop levels, timetables and measures for dealing with Iraq's cooperation with those timetables and pieces that do not include these particular elements are unsuitable. It sounds like the Times already has a plan, er... agenda, for our withdrawal from Iraq and McCain's wasn't consistent with their plan. Maybe McCain should write an Op/Ed on objective journalism and submit that to Mr. Shipley.

[iNow]

Perhaps he or his campaign just made the Op/Ed generally available to the media. If he did make his Op/Ed generally available, would it be surprising that the Drudge Report would be the first to provide it on the web. I think not.

Not likely. "Getting the scoop" is huge for all news organizations, not just Drudge. Had the McCain people made it widely available, we'd have seen it widely published, which we did not.

[waitforufo]

Not likely. "Getting the scoop" is huge for all news organizations, not just Drudge. Had the McCain people made it widely available, we'd have seen it widely published, which we did not.

 

I believe I saw it on the websites of all the major news outlets on the day the NYT rejected the Op/Ed. Perhaps the day after. Drudge is often more interested in being first then correct. Being wrong on occasion doesn't seem to bother him, where others cannot afford to be wrong. Once the scoop is made, other news sources will often take more time in order to provide more background information or post "scoop" reaction. Hence they take longer.

 

Bascule, you are correct, I should have directed my previous comment to Pangloss.

[iNow]

I believe I saw it on the websites of all the major news outlets on the day the NYT rejected the Op/Ed.

Can you share two or three that printed the entire article that day? I don't mean to imply you aren't being truthful, it's just that "belief" isn't good enough for me.

 

 

Drudge is often more interested in being first then correct. Being wrong on occasion doesn't seem to bother him, where others cannot afford to be wrong.

Well, that is possible, but doesn't speak to the issue of them printing the story first nor to the issue of how they obtained it.

 

 

Once the scoop is made, other news sources will often take more time in order to provide more background information or post "scoop" reaction. Hence they take longer.

I think this comment demonstrates somewhat your lack of understanding of the modern news machine. With the internet and the 24 hour news cycle, "taking more time" and taking longer are not as relevant. While I accept your point that they'd rather do research and be right, there really was no background to provide.

 

This was an article, written by McCain, looking for an audience. It was finished and ready for presentation as is. While news agencies may want to research the finer points, the issue here is that you suggested McCain gave the article, as is, to everyone in the media. I don't think that's the case, but would welcome evidence to the contrary to help me change my mind.

 

They went to the NYTimes. They were rejected. They made the smart political move and went to Drudge next to get idiots like me and you and all the other fundie nutjobs who scream about NYTimes being nothing but a biased, inaccurate, liberal rag out there talking about it (no direct offense to DH intended... he likes chili. )

 

I concede that I don't have evidence to support my comment about their approach or this being a purposeful play to maximize attention (hell, they may have submitted it to the NYTimes knowing in advance it would be rejected... wouldn't surprise me). However, I openly acknowledge that it is a speculation waiting for correction from evidence to the contrary (that the article was freely available for print, and not submitted directly to Drudge).

[D H]

no direct offense to DH intended... he likes chili.

Hey! Should I take offense, or should I set aside the keyboard and take another bite of chili?

 

Another bite of chili! (It's what's for dinner tonight, our standard fare when a hurricane is close enough to send in bands of rain but far enough away to remove any worries.)

[Sisyphus]

That wouldn't work, as it would expose the bias of the New York Times for all to see.

 

What do you mean? Editorials are opinion pieces.

[Pangloss]

Do you have any evidence the McCain or is campaign went "straight to the Drudge Report" with is Op/Ed after it was rejected by the NYT.

 

I believe I saw it on the websites of all the major news outlets on the day the NYT rejected the Op/Ed. Perhaps the day after.

 

The others got it from Drudge, as I understand it. I'm just going by Howard Kurtz on this, but he's a reliable source (all puns intended), and a relatively objective one. As they say in the business, that's why he gets the gets that he gets. Anybody whom Ann Coulter calls "a liberal obmudsman apologist" and the far left also reproach for being a conservative shill is alright in my book. And if that weren't enough, I've read a couple of his books.

 

McCain chose to play it for partisanship value.

[ParanoiA]

IOW the Times is saying the only pieces it will publish concerning Iraq are those that include troop levels, timetables and measures for dealing with Iraq's cooperation with those timetables and pieces that do not include these particular elements are unsuitable. It sounds like the Times already has a plan, er... agenda, for our withdrawal from Iraq and McCain's wasn't consistent with their plan. Maybe McCain should write an Op/Ed on objective journalism and submit that to Mr. Shipley.

 

Absolutely spot on. I wish he would have done that.

 

Why does McCain's content need to qualify philosophically? That's partisanship, period. They know it. They don't care. They believe their intellect trumps the masses and are doing what's best for us - pimping Obama. They love him. In Obama they get all the liberal ideology they love, AND they get to show everybody how racist they're not. He's perfect.

 

That's conjecture on my part, obviously, but it seems to fit my personal experience anyway.

[Pangloss]

They'd have probably printed that kind of piece (with his thoughts on journalistic integrity).

 

I do agree that the newsies are too infatuated with Obama. Not as much as McCain does, but it's gotten pretty outrageous. These videos are amusing, albeit a bit unfair:

 

http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm

[waitforufo]

The others got it from Drudge, as I understand it. I'm just going by Howard Kurtz on this, but he's a reliable source (all puns intended), and a relatively objective one. As they say in the business, that's why he gets the gets that he gets. Anybody whom Ann Coulter calls "a liberal obmudsman apologist" and the far left also reproach for being a conservative shill is alright in my book. And if that weren't enough, I've read a couple of his books.

 

McCain chose to play it for partisanship value.

 

Okay, but how do you know that someone at the NYT did not send the story to Drudge?

 

Also, even if McCain or his campaign did decide to use the Drudge Report to get this story out, how is that a partisanship play?

 

 

For iNow

CNN Monday July 21

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/?iref=mpstoryview

 

Huffington post July 21

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/emnew-york-timesem-reject_n_114079.html

 

LA Times July 22

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trailnyt22-2008jul22,0,2438754.story

This one is interesting in that they say "as first reported on the Drudge Report." I see this as simply properly attributing the scoop to Drudge.

 

Fox News July 21

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/

 

Many more, just search Google "New York Times Rejects McCain"

Edited July 23, 2008 by waitforufo

[Pangloss]

Please don't post articles as if they're supporting your position when they do not actually do so. None of those sources state that the New York Times gave the piece to the Drudge Report. Drudge DID scoop it -- I told you that before (YOU said that it was widely reported, NOT scooped). ("I believe I saw it on the websites of all the major news outlets on the day the NYT rejected the Op/Ed. Perhaps the day after.")

 

Anyway, the Times lacks any reason to give McCain's piece to Drudge. They would just run the piece themselves. Why would they WANT to make themselves look bad? And even if they did try some sort of weird underhanded move, Drudge would simply TELL us that the Times did so, because they would love to make the Times look bad.

 

And if McCain didn't leak the story to Drudge he would deny doing so, because everyone is saying that they did so, and they are not ignorant of that fact.

 

Your theory needs a lot of work, not to mention substantiation. Mine, on the other hand, enjoys the support of objective media analysts like Howard Kurtz and (today) Clary Hoyt.

Edited July 23, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

For iNow...

 

Timestamp on Drudge:

 

http://drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm

Mon Jul 21 2008 12:00:25 ET

 

 

Now, for the timestamp on those you shared:

 

CNN Monday July 21

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/?iref=mpstoryview

3:55 p.m. EDT, Mon July 21, 2008

 

 

Huffington post July 21

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/emnew-york-timesem-reject_n_114079.html

July 21, 2008 12:57 PM

 

 

LA Times July 22

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trailnyt22-2008jul22,0,2438754.story

Time stamp not offered, but they confirm it was first reported at Drudge in the story itself.

 

 

Fox News July 21

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/

Story was not timestamped, but the first comment was at:

July 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pm

 

 

 

My point has only been made stronger by your reply. Thanks.

[waitforufo]

Okay, I think you two (Pangloss and iNow) are misunderstanding me.

 

Pangloss, I was not trying to suggest that the articles I posted supported my speculation regarding the NYT as the source of the Drudge the Op/Ed rejection story. iNow asked for articles that supported my position that the story was widely reported the same day the story broke on the Drudge Report. That is why I began that part of my post with "For iNow." iNow confirms that all but the LA Times story were available the same day, which is all that I said. I included the LA Times story because the LA Times properly attributed the original news break to the Drudge Report. The LA Times should give Drudge attribution even if they were independently working on this same story. That is simply good journalism from the LA Times.

 

In my first post on this topic I ask if there was any evidence that McCain or is campaign went directly to Drudge. No one has provided such evidence. I suggested that perhaps the McCain campaign made the information widely available and the Drudge was just the first to report it. I still believe that could be the case. Since all of us are speculating about how this story became available let me suggest the following.

 

Perhaps the McCain campaign has a news release email list. When the NYT rejected the Op/Ed they sent an email to all on that list expressing their frustration with the NYT along with a copy of the Op/Ed. Reputable news agencies (not Drudge) would still want to verify the story. This would mean contacting someone in the McCain office to make sure they really officially sent the email, and contacting the NYT to make sure they really did reject the Op/Ed. Most reputable news agencies (not Drudge) would want to make sure that the Op/Ed sent to them by the McCain campaign was really the one rejected by the NYT. All that verification takes time. Would Drudge wait until all that verification took place? I think not.

 

Once Drudge did break the story, most good news agencies will want to provide more than a "me to" story. Second place is first looser. Providing more information than the news break takes time. Hence the other stories are a few hours later.

 

Now let's further speculate. Say you’re the NYT and your phone starts ringing off the hook by news agencies around the country wanting to confirm the information they received in a McCain email. Perhaps you decide that this rejection, when reported by other media will make you look bad, so you go into damage control mode. Perhaps you think you could discredit the Op/Ed and McCain campaign by leaking the story to Drudge. Now if you leak the story to Drudge some, particularly NYT readers, will discount the story. The NYT readers will simply say "You know that Drudge guy is just a right wing hack… yada yada…"

 

As I said, the above is speculation. Plausible speculation. As plausible as the McCain campaign went directly to Drudge.

[Pangloss]

Well, not to drag this out endlessly, but in my opinion it's not plausible because if it were you wouldn't have these particular analysts saying this over and over without a response from the McCain campaign -- they would at least deny it. It's a question of professional courtesy and respectability.

 

But yes, that explanation is possible, given what we've heard so far.