Date: Mon Jul 21 15:47:48 2008
Sender: Gregor Ellis
I usually don't buy into claims of orchestrated media bias, but the specifics
of the New York Times' recent refusal to print a McCain OpEd piece, in rebuttal
to one published by Obama, is awfully close.
From CNNPolitics.com is this quote of the email sent to the McCain campaign
rejecting the piece and suggesting what would be required for acceptance. It is
attributed to NYT OpEd Page Editor David Shipley, who was President Bill
Clinton's senior speechwriter from 1995 to 1997:
"... 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. And it would need to describe the senator's
Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."
Now, the request for the definition of Victory seems reasonable - but this
level of detail was not required of Obama in his piece (related pertinent
details about HOW he would pull us out and what his contingency plans are if we
start getting pounded on the way out, or how he will persuade more of the Euros
to take up an active part in Afghanistan which he just states will happen).
Further, it is stating that as a requirement to get published in rebuttal, it
must include detailed policy elements contrary to McCain's frequently stated
and explained positions on the matter.
What a crock! Shipley should be reprimanded or possibly fired if he acted
alone. If it was an official decision by the editorial policy board (or
whatever the NYT calls its version) then it should be traeted as the campaign
contribution it appears to be.
Date: Mon Jul 21 15:55:51 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
apparently they said it was just an attack piece and asked him to actually send
some information.
Here is McCains piece
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html
what did he write that on his lunch break?
It's the same thing they have been saying since 2003...
War is going great, were winning, enemy in their last throes, victory is
close.... (yeah right)
the Times Response:
"We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we
have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator
McCain since 1996"
Date: Mon Jul 21 19:03:35 2008
Sender: Gregor Ellis
You are right that its been his position(s) for a while - its an op ed piece
and not a news item and was apparently presented in direct rebuttal to the
Obama piece. Note that the Obama piece contains much undetailed handwaving that
falls into the category of "and when I say, it will be so" without the level of
detail that McCain has been asked for.
Further, the statement that the piece needed to include a timetable for
withdrawal to get published is egregiously out of line given that timetables,
and whether they should exist publicly at all, are one of the major points of
difference between the two candidates. If the NYT doesn't like or think that
McCain's positions are reasonable, then they can run an editorial on the same
day disagreeing or even attacking McCain's position. But rejecting a rebuttal
piece while stating what it would have to contain regarding a policy matter
makes a lie to the idea of presenting a forum for competing ideas.
BTW - making candidates write actual columns with substance isn't a problem (as
opposed to just an attack). But when one has been given a forum for his ideas,
how to you reject the rebuttal, almost point by point as it was, and claim you
are not biased?
Date: Thu Jul 24 05:49:13 2008
Sender: Just Oz
There is still bias in the response.
For instance, as part of the response they want McCain to note his timetables
for the war.
Well, McCain thinks timetables are a bad idea so he's not going to include any
timetables, is he?
So now they won't publish his piece.
Date: Thu Jul 24 08:44:42 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
It was a lot simpler than you are making it...
they asked him to add some things to it, other than attack rhetoric. The Times
has published 7 McCain pieces in the last few years. You can read it
anywhere.
I realize it's the time of year when Republican Presidential campaigns start
the "media bias" were the victim tactic, but I didn't think it was so horrible.
** Not to mention the obvious advantage given to McCain. I didn't even know
Obama had an Op-Ed piece in the NYtimes. If McCain rewrites it now everyone
will read it.
Date: Thu Jul 24 23:48:13 2008
Sender: Gregor Ellis
AJ, you spout more Dem attack rhetoric than Rove on steroids. Its classic.
Yeah - the NYT asked him to lay out policy details that he is on record as
saying nobody should define. Asking him to define victory is reasonable - but
not unbiased in this case as the Obama piece has very few details on several
points, including the following that map pretty closely to what McCain was
asked to give more detail on:
"We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in
16 months." - How it can be done safely, and under what detailed schedule were
questions not asked or required.
"After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited
missions: ..." - Obama was not asked to declare how large the residual force
might be before this was printed. Obama was asked this week and I read in the
SF Chronicle that he said it would be "perhaps 80,000 troops." Given that there
were ~140,000 there in June of this year, what a withdrawal!) Here's the link
for that troop number:
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm
Date: Fri Jul 25 13:40:11 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
again.....
it was 75% an attack piece.
I stick by my point only a few people read Obama NY Times piece or knew about
it.
Everyone will now look at the McCain article if he writes it.
It is a great opportunity for McCain to state his theories, in full public
spotlight-
I wonder why he hasn't?
Date: Fri Jul 25 14:08:44 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
Because he knows that he is a republican, and thus wrong about everything.
Date: Sat Jul 26 17:28:49 2008
Sender: Gregor Ellis
An OpEd in the NYT is widely read - count on it. But yes - this has given more
publicity to McCain than he would have gotten from the OpEd itself so I'm sure
his campaign is not unhappy. But my comment was about media bias - something I
don't generally believe happens in a coordinated manner (O'Reilly and Olbermann
for example are presenting personal opinions and make few bones about their
biases making them editorial in nature). Requiring McCain to make a policy
statement at odds with his stated position on the matter in order to get
printed is bias.
Yeah - McCain's piece was about 75% attacking Obama's stance as you might
expect in a rebuttal piece. Obama's was just shy of half devoted to attacking
McCain and Bush (and linking the 2). Appropriate comments from the Times IMO
would have been about adding his own policy statements in a compare/contrast
approach and making positive arguments for his positions rather than just
attacking Obama. The fact that Obama got printed with vague handwaving
statements that the Editor seems unwilling to allow McCain to make is the
point.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
