NYTimes Rejects McCain Op/Ed

[swansont]

So did anyone actually read McCain's piece, and judge it on its merits? Every single paragraph following the initial one is about Obama and how Obama is wrong — it does not lay out any specifics of McCains plans, or define what "winning" would be. It's basically just an attack ad. If you look at Obama's piece, he mentions McCain just three times.

[iNow]

I did read the piece, and that's an excellent point. I've been trying to demonstrate the same point quite frequently recently, like here.

[Pangloss]

Sure, but that doesn't mean the Times shouldn't have run it. It's not their place to say anything about the content -- they should either run each candidates' words, as-is, or run neither of them. The situation makes no "editorial" sense at all.

[iNow]

Sure, but that doesn't mean the Times shouldn't have run it. It's not their place to say anything about the content -- they should either run each candidates' words, as-is, or run neither of them. The situation makes no "editorial" sense at all.

 

How can you say that? Their entire MO is running certain content. They've made the name they have through their content. If Obama had a piece that said McCain is an old fart and shouldn't be allowed to drive a car, let alone run a country, are you suggesting they should just run that "as-is" and that they should not use their editorial filters to recognize what is and is not appropriate for their dollars to spend on printing, and further, what is or is not appropriate to get the implicit support and backing from it running under their publishing umbrella?

[ParanoiA]

Sure, but that doesn't mean the Times shouldn't have run it. It's not their place to say anything about the content -- they should either run each candidates' words, as-is, or run neither of them. The situation makes no "editorial" sense at all.

 

But is it the nature of Op/Ed to serve as a debate platform between two politicians?

 

I note his comments on Obama's position on the surge and his subsequent political maneuvering around that stain (and then apply that model to his recent Iraq declarations) as relevant and worthy, but much of his piece is a critique of Obama.

 

Maybe that's ok, I don't read the paper...

[Pangloss]

How can you say that? Their entire MO is running certain content. They've made the name they have through their content. If Obama had a piece that said McCain is an old fart and shouldn't be allowed to drive a car, let alone run a country, are you suggesting they should just run that "as-is" and that they should not use their editorial filters to recognize what is and is not appropriate for their dollars to spend on printing, and further, what is or is not appropriate to get the implicit support and backing from it running under their publishing umbrella?

 

Absolutely. No question about it. Either they should open their doors to both candidates, or they should not open their doors at all. Mind you, I'm suggesting a law here, I'm just talking about what's fair and what's politically wise.

 

We agree the Times' purpose was not to educate the populace on grammar and punctuation, right? Well, can we not also agree that they're not trying to hold hostage this country's candidates in order to indoctrinate the populace on which political positions are important and which ones are not? Because that's the impression that they've given people by this act.

 

I don't think that's their purpose at all, I think their purpose, what they SHOULD be doing, and what they typically ARE doing in these situations, is simply shining a spotlight on the candidates. Well, letting them repeat utter nonsense and pure drivel, if that's what they want to utter, IS illuminating. So they should leave it alone.

 

And their own ombudsman Clark Hoyt, as well as objective media analyst Howard Kurtz, both agree with me, iNow. Kurtz spoke of how Obama's piece is not a very good leg for them to stand on -- sure, he may not attack McCain as much as McCain attacked him, but he didn't exactly offer anything new, as editor Shipley claimed. Clark Hoyt also spoke of fairness, saying it was a mistake to even give the appearance of holding him to a different standard than McCain, and not because it gives ammunition to the far right, either.

[doG]

How can you say that? Their entire MO is running certain content. They've made the name they have through their content. If Obama had a piece that said McCain is an old fart and shouldn't be allowed to drive a car, let alone run a country, are you suggesting they should just run that "as-is" and that they should not use their editorial filters to recognize what is and is not appropriate for their dollars to spend on printing, and further, what is or is not appropriate to get the implicit support and backing from it running under their publishing umbrella?

 

They are quite entitled, under their right to freedom of speech, to wholly back any one candidate they choose and to refuse publishing anything from any other candidates. It is their content and therefore their speech. That is not "objective journalism" though, it is campaigning and should be counted as such in the candidate's campaign contributions. If they want to be a "news outlet" then they need to be a news outlet and that means objective reporting, not campaigning. Nitpicking what each candidate can and cannot say is not news reporting.

[iNow]

And their own ombudsman Clark Hoyt, as well as objective media analyst Howard Kurtz, both agree with me, iNow. Kurtz spoke of how Obama's piece is not a very good leg for them to stand on -- sure, he may not attack McCain as much as McCain attacked him, but he didn't exactly offer anything new, as editor Shipley claimed. Clark Hoyt also spoke of fairness, saying it was a mistake to even give the appearance of holding him to a different standard than McCain, and not because it gives ammunition to the far right, either.

I have to admit that this is a valid point.

 

 

 

If they want to be a "news outlet" then they need to be a news outlet and that means objective reporting, not campaigning. Nitpicking what each candidate can and cannot say is not news reporting.

Indeed. Unfortunately, it seems CBS is also "selectively editing" the messages of the candidates:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34292

[swansont]

And their own ombudsman Clark Hoyt, as well as objective media analyst Howard Kurtz, both agree with me, iNow. Kurtz spoke of how Obama's piece is not a very good leg for them to stand on -- sure, he may not attack McCain as much as McCain attacked him, but he didn't exactly offer anything new, as editor Shipley claimed. Clark Hoyt also spoke of fairness, saying it was a mistake to even give the appearance of holding him to a different standard than McCain, and not because it gives ammunition to the far right, either.

 

Obama may not have proffered anything new, but it was a piece that spelled out his position — what he would do and what his goals were. McCains's piece did not fulfill the same function, and it seems to me what the Times was asking for was for him to do as Obama did — write an op-ed which spells out your goals and what your proposed actions are. McCain chose not to do so.

[iNow]

Imagine the shite storm that would ensue if Barack submitted a piece that mostly derided McCain. I've grown so tired of the hypocracy.

[Pangloss]

I think Obama would be nodded at and complied with if he'd submitted a piece that mostly derided McCain. He's certainly shown no shortage of willingness to do so, so I don't understand that comment at all.

 

As for Swansont's post above, if they specified those parameters in advance then I could agree with that position, like when a debate is held that focuses on certain issues. If that was the case here then a rejection would be understandable. If it was not the case, then I stand by what I said earlier. It was their right, but it was a huge mistake, and I've got objective backing for that position.

[iNow]

I think Obama would be nodded at and complied with if he'd submitted a piece that mostly derided McCain. He's certainly shown no shortage of willingness to do so, so I don't understand that comment at all.

 

My point being that those same people who are screaming about the NYTimes being biased for rejecting McCain's article would be crucifying Obama had he submitted something similar.

 

Basically, they're a bunch of hypocrits. It's not at all hard to imagine the frenzy that would ensue had Obama submitted a piece like McCain's.

 

Think about it... he'd be completely lambasted if he made comments like that. For all of this talk of bias, it's funny to me how the phenomenon applies equally to the side making the claims.

[doG]

Obama may not have proffered anything new, but it was a piece that spelled out his position — what he would do and what his goals were. McCains's piece did not fulfill the same function, and it seems to me what the Times was asking for was for him to do as Obama did — write an op-ed which spells out your goals and what your proposed actions are. McCain chose not to do so.

 

And that's where the Times missed an opportunity to show that Obama has a plan and McCain doesn't. IMO the Times did McCain a favor by rejecting his piece. Running it might have hardened Obama's support amongst their own readers.

[Pangloss]

My point being that those same people who are screaming about the NYTimes being biased for rejecting McCain's article would be crucifying Obama had he submitted something similar.

 

Basically, they're a bunch of hypocrits. It's not at all hard to imagine the frenzy that would ensue had Obama submitted a piece like McCain's.

 

Think about it... he'd be completely lambasted if he made comments like that. For all of this talk of bias, it's funny to me how the phenomenon applies equally to the side making the claims.

 

Oh I see, yes, I agree with this point completely.

[swansont]

As for Swansont's post above, if they specified those parameters in advance then I could agree with that position, like when a debate is held that focuses on certain issues. If that was the case here then a rejection would be understandable. If it was not the case, then I stand by what I said earlier. It was their right, but it was a huge mistake, and I've got objective backing for that position.

 

I think your very first quote in the OP points to this. The said they'd publish an op-ed that mirrors what Obama had done, and specified what they meant.

 

And that's where the Times missed an opportunity to show that Obama has a plan and McCain doesn't. IMO the Times did McCain a favor by rejecting his piece. Running it might have hardened Obama's support amongst their own readers.

 

If their goal was to show that Obama has a plan and to discredit McCain, sure. But maybe, just maybe, they were showing some journalistic integrity.

[Pangloss]

No, it doesn't point to that. It doesn't indicate what they might or might not have told Obama before he submitted his own piece.

 

You're putting too fine a point on it anyway. That's just not the way editorial boards work. They know full well the difference between holding submissions to editorial standards and opening their editorial page to politicians running for office. This was the latter, until they read McCain's piece, then it became the former, and I've presented support for this from objective sources. If you want to speculate about editorial standards, be my guest, but I see no backing for that point of view.

[doG]

But maybe, just maybe, they were showing some journalistic integrity.

 

I think if that were the case they wouldn't pick and chose what the candidates can and cannot say. Journalistic integrity is about reporting the news, not dictating it.