Email This to a Friend
The Gray Lady Rejects McCain
The story of the senator's discarded op-ed explains why the New York Times is dying. (Read more from Roger L. Simon here.)
The other man running for president (you may have heard of him), John McCain, saw Obama’s piece and got a little hot under the collar. Now I don’t believe all those stories about McCain flying off the handle and throttling Nicaraguan Communists (I wouldn’t mind necessarily in that case if it were true), but in this case he was going to let his pen do all the talking. McCain and company dashed off a quick 700 words and sent it in to the Times, confident that their response would be received with the deference and alacrity that Obama’s piece had been given.
The Times editorial page poobah, David Shipley, was in no mood to be deferential or alacritous — except in the speed and condescension in which he rejected the piece.
“It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece,” the New York Times op-ed editor cooed in an email to the McCain camp on Friday night. “‘I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.”
I’m sure Shipley thought he was being helpful, trying to assist an old man who had lost his way and didn’t really mean all those things he was saying about Iraq, about “victory,” and about all that stuff that the Times had given up on years ago.
McCain’s staff were not amused, with one incredulous aide claiming (according to Drudge) “the paper simply does not agree with the senator’s Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not ‘re-work the draft.’”
Not exactly, says Shipley:
Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.
“The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.”
Shipley continues: “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.”
Aside from the fact that there was absolutely no “new information” in Obama’s piece, which actually recycled his latest proposals where a 16 month timetable would be put in place unless he were to ditch the timetable after he discussed the situation with the generals which he wouldn’t do and even if he did it wouldn’t matter anyway unless it did. And no permanent bases would be negotiated — really.
Shipley, who worked for President Clinton, obviously did not take lessons in how to fib from his former boss because he is a transparently terrible liar. He is making it perfectly clear that it is alright for Obama to be as nebulously obtuse about how he wants to get out of Iraq, but McCain must be rigidly, perfectly “concrete” on how he proposes to win the war? This with the virtual assurance that even if McCain were to bow and scrape by including such a formulation in the op-ed that Shipley would reject it for not being “concrete” enough? What kind of deal is that?
A raw deal, to be sure. But the smirking Mr. Shipley will not get the last laugh in this case. The Drudge Report reprinted the entire McCain op-ed on its website. Since Mr. Drudge enjoys a readership of around 2.6 million uniques a day, McCain’s ideas will receive a fair hearing despite the efforts of the New York Times to shut him up.
I suppose there was a time when we didn’t know any better and we really believed that the New York Times was interested in publishing “all the news that’s fit to print.” That slogan dates back to 1896 when rival publishers routinely touted their own candidates and their own parties on the front pages of their newspapers. Those were the wide open, brawling days of the business when newspaper’s were two cents worth of froth, mayhem, blood, and in your face partisan politics.
The New York Times tried to change that and make newspapering a respectable business by offering a staid, solemn, and serious approach to the news. Soon, they had copycats all over the country and the dissemination of news was no longer left in the hands of hacks, carnival hucksters, and tin pot politicians, but men who saw money in muckraking, promoting reform, and analyzing the world of their readers. It was a revolution.
Like all revolutions, it eventually turned on and consumed the ideas of its progenitors and morphed into something hideously unrecognizable. In the case of the modern newspaper — specifically the New York Times — it is the overarching arrogance of belief in their own superior judgment over people they used to think they were serving. It has led to a culture that has gone beyond simple bias and equates newsprint with Holy Writ. This obviates the need for fairness and even accuracy. When all that is turned out as a product is done in service to a cause, not only does the quality of news reporting suffer but the public, more eager for other vantage points than the one point of view offered by the Times, will end up deserting the familiar in order to satisfy their own cravings for information.
The Times is dying. And the story of John McCain’s discarded op-ed is one of the big reasons why.
This is beyond bias.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Rick Moran is PJM Chicago editor; his own blog is Right Wing Nut House.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
45 Comments
1. Lisa:It really is a shame what the media has done to this election. Between their sexist destruction of Clinton and their slavish obsession with Obama, they have left us with only one choice… McCain.
Jul 21, 2008 - 1:44 pm 2. Dave II:The Times is dying, yes, and their no-longer-just-perceived bias is a huge reason for it.
You hit the nail right there:
“the public, more eager for other vantage points than the one point of view offered by the Times, will end up deserting the familiar in order to satisfy their own cravings for information.”
It is happening to newspapers across the country…and that “craving for information” is being satisfied by the internet, cable TV, talk radio, and increasingly even less, magazines.
The fact is WE DON’T NEED THE NY TIMES anymore…nor do we want it in it’s present form. The Sunday issue provides alot of good things to fill a weekend…but so do other activites and papers. Why bother weeding through all the bias and prejudice to see how (bad) a latest movie is or why I should travel to Greece?
New Yorkers get their local news from other (better) papers and we HAVE a “national” newspaper that is ALOT more fun to read…USATODAY.
The slow painful death of the NY TIMES will be an interesting, fun, and perverse thing to watch. I can only hope to see it’s obituary published on the last day it prints!
Jul 21, 2008 - 1:49 pm 3. misanthropicus:New York Times is an awful furuncle spewing opportunistic & cynical poison. I’ll quote here only one of their latest jobs – the releasing of the name of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s CIA interrogator, a CIA cover officer, obviously jeopardizing the agency’s work, demoralizing agents, and placing that person and his family in danger.
Jul 21, 2008 - 2:24 pm 4. Brad:This is the same NYT which before printed 27 indignant stories about Valerie Plame and the sinister consequences of the disclosure of her job and name, all stories aiming to knock down Dick Cheney – and this when it was known that Valerie Plame HAD NEVER BEEN A CIA CLANDESTINE OFFICER (she was just a common employee). As far as the disclosure, that was done by a State dept. guy, Armitrage, who had a problem with the administration.
Cesspool for New York Times – and I cherish the agony.
Traitors, malcontents, and oxygen thieves.
Jul 21, 2008 - 2:26 pm 5. deguello:This is a well-deserved kick in the teeth for Mcnumbskul,who actively lickspittled the times ,attacking conservatives, in order to curry its slimy favor. Mcnumbskull better get used to the lib.media trashing him! this is only the beginning!
Jul 21, 2008 - 2:27 pm 6. Doc99:They said if George Bush was re-elected, the MSM would only print one side of the political argument. And they were right!
Jul 21, 2008 - 2:50 pm 7. l boucher:I read recently that since June 1 the MSM has given Obama almost 3X the the media coverage of McCain! The worst offenders are the nightly national news casts at NBC, ABC and CBS they have given Obama 4X the coverage of McCain. This is a really scary precedence and situation for a Presidential election in a democracy!!
Jul 21, 2008 - 3:37 pm 8. Brock:Your theory doesn’t hold. LGF and Daily Kos are biased. Their readership is up the last several years, from what I hear.
Some people just want their opinion validated. Others actually want new information. Either way, both are easier to find online than at the NYT.
But I wouldn’t write off the newspapers yet. The law of the long tail has not be suspended, which means there will always be a few standout winners in a given space. Not all newspapers will survive, but some will (though it’s too early to say who the winners will be yet – even though the WSJ looks like a good bet as one of the elite for a long time to come).
Jul 21, 2008 - 3:44 pm 9. Jude:The newspapers will be filled with the questions how the hell did that happen when Obama looses the election and is blaming it on everything you can possibly think of and coming up with answers to their own questions. The answer will be that there are a lot of intelligent people out there that keep their mouths shut and vote for the proper person who will do the job properly adhering to what is morally correct.
Jul 21, 2008 - 4:05 pm 10. mwl:Brock, it’s true that LGF and Daily Kos are biased. But the important thing is that they do not pretend otherwise, like the NYT does. Blogs and newspapers do not play by the same rules.
What keeps the blogosphere honest? A regime of peer review that any scientific journal should envy. Credibility is a blogger’s stock in trade; if you twist the truth too much, you’ll be called on it, and your readers will vanish.
Jul 21, 2008 - 4:23 pm 11. kabud:honestly who gives a flying ** about NYT))
Jul 21, 2008 - 4:43 pm 12. Americans know what Conservative Bloggers have been saying all along.:[...] Blogging: The Opinionator, http://www.redstate.com, The Confluence, American Power, michellemalkin.com, Pajamas Media, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS, Wake up America and [...]
Jul 21, 2008 - 4:46 pm 13. Tito:“Like all revolutions, it eventually turned on and consumed the ideas of its progenitors and morphed into something hideously unrecognizable. In the case of the modern newspaper — specifically the New York Times — it is the overarching arrogance of belief in their own superior judgment over people they used to think they were serving.”
Exactly. I was always a newspaper person and felt that no morning was complete without looking over the morning paper. But the arrogance of the mainstream press has driven me away. I haven’t subscribed to a paper for at least 10 years. It’s one thing to be constantly insulted and condescended to; it’s another to pay for the “privilege.”
Jul 21, 2008 - 5:22 pm 14. Mwalimu Daudi:It was the “layers of fact-checking” that was supposed to be what separated the MSM newspapers, magazines and TV broadcasts from the pajama-clad bloggers. We all know how that turned out.
Jul 21, 2008 - 5:32 pm 15. Ralph Woods:Funny thing about the NYT rejecting McCain’s op ed. Far more people will read it from links through the blogosphere than would have ever read it in the old dying paper. As far as all the coverage and obfustication for Obama the big broadcast media of NBC, ABC and CBS probably do not reach in total the audience a Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity reach. I hope the democrats spend a bundle on this election campaign. At least it is not taxpayers dollars.
Jul 21, 2008 - 6:05 pm 16. ZEITGEIST:[...] MORAN ON THE NYT’S McCain rejection. “The Times is dying. And the story of John McCain’s discarded op-ed is one of the big reasons [...]
Jul 21, 2008 - 6:08 pm 17. Ben:“LGF and Daily Kos are biased”
And free, too. I’ll bet THAT would bump up the NY Times’s circulation.
AND it would make the comparison valid.
Jul 21, 2008 - 6:30 pm 18. Korla Pundit:Gee, didn’t the Times endorse McCain back in the primaries?
Wait a minute! Was that just a disingenuous slap at Rudy, who they hate even more, and a way of rooting for the weakest GOP candidate?!
No!
Jul 21, 2008 - 6:55 pm 19. Daedalus:One again, the New York Times exhibits it political tilt. This list is too long to compile but includes things such as exposing the money tracking efforts of the CIA, exposing CIA agents, and anything else that will support its left wing base. To ask that an editorial be rewritten to match the outlook of an opposition candidate is over the hill, but then again, is the New York Times a real newspaper of record, or just a shill for the extreme left wing? I think the answer is already known.
Jul 21, 2008 - 7:25 pm 20. david still:I am sure that no one who badmouths the NY Times ever ever reads it…right! The NY Times asked McCain to rewrite what he had submitted; it did not refuse to run it…from what I have heard, the submitted piece was on the level of Freshman 101 essay, with vagueness, generalities and a bit of anti-Obama snarkiness instead of substance. When the media must print any and all things sent it, then that is being a whore and not a paper of record.
If all other palces are so free and open, why do just about all blogs require that submitted pieces first be approved?
Jul 21, 2008 - 7:26 pm 21. gs:Obama has a wide-open look at the basket. Will he take the shot?–
By criticizing the Times’ decision, Obama could claim to put the democratic process above his partisan advantage. The impression on undecided voters might be significant; the loss of partisan support would be minimal or none.
Might this be a set-up? I’m not saying that, but I don’t entirely dismiss the thought.
Jul 21, 2008 - 7:36 pm 22. Aurelian:david claims that those who “badmouth” the New York Times never read it, then dismisses McCain’s op-ed based on “what I have heard.” Does anybody else notice something here?
Jul 21, 2008 - 8:01 pm 23. Ditto:david still writes:…from what I have heard, the submitted piece was on the level of Freshman 101 essay, with vagueness, generalities and a bit of anti-Obama snarkiness instead of substance.</p?
Jul 21, 2008 - 8:09 pm 24. cubanbob:Read it yourself. Doesn’t sound so generalized to me. I write to Ph.D. level readerships on a routine basis – I wouldn’t call this a Freshman 101 essay at all.
No prizes guessing who david still worships, eh?
David Still: and Obama’s piece was exactly what? If the Times was actually a newspaper, it would have published both pieces side by side and let the reader compare. Instead its just a house organ for the Democratic Party and a bad one at that. That is why I canceled it several years ago. If they could only wake up and smell the coffee, they could be a great newspaper. Here is a tip: keeps the news straight and leave the opinion to the opinion page. One more thing, verify the facts before you make a fool of yourself before using false or misleading “facts” as the basis of an editorial.
Jul 21, 2008 - 8:27 pm 25. JMT:So… At what point does McCain-Feingold kick in? After all they will be advocating for a particular candidate close to an election. They are clearly a partisan organ seeking to influence election by advocating a particular candidate. There will certainly be whining that organizations are advertising for McCain. Since the Supreme Court has already ruled the the First Amendment doesn’t apply, is there any reason at all the NYT should be immune?
David: It is tender and heart-warming to think that the NYT was protecting John McCain from the derision that would be generated should his ideas be presented in what you regard as a slipshod fashion. Heaven knows the Times should never publish anything with anti-Obama snarkiness.
Perhaps we should think of the NYT as Obama’s newsletter – with all the legal ramifications that comes with that designation.
Jul 21, 2008 - 8:29 pm 26. Lee:If the NYT wants to become one of the obviously partisan gang, then that is their decision. But it is an extremely foolish one.
The blogosphere and other ‘new media’ outlets are by nature opinionated, but opinion is cheap. I have a blog, as does everybody else in the world, and I do it for free, when not working my day job. (Anybody need mattresses in the Louisville area?)
Non-biased objective news reporting is rare, and those few outlets who could manage it, or come close at least with their larger budgets, would be filling a very profitable niche.
If everybody is doing one thing, do the other. The NYT is chasing to do what everybody else does, and is ruining a century old brand to do so.
And these aren’t exactly original ideas I’m commenting here, it’s just amazing our ‘journalistic superiors’ don’t get it.
Jul 21, 2008 - 8:30 pm 27. Mabel:McCain’s is far superior. A very well crafted response and to the point. Obama’s is like all his speeches, full of style and no substance…just cliches about a war that shouldn’t have been. If Obama was the one making choices we would have lost Irak and it would be even harder to keep fighting in Afghanistan.
Jul 21, 2008 - 8:55 pm 28. schnargley:I vigorously applaud the decision of the NYT not to run the reactionary McCain’s op-ed piece while publishing Barack Obama’s. As they said it, “had no substance,” while Obama’s was simply oozing with substance. Those of us who are less educated and acquainted with journalism’s subtlties and nuances are not capabale of professionally judging what piece has substance and what does not. The Ivy League-educated editors are very, very well acquainted with substance and know what it is a mile away. That is why they did choose to publish Hamas and Mizbollah statements on their oped page in the name of “fair dialgogue.” Those pieces also had substance. Maybe if McCain learned to write with more substance, to learn what it i the eitors want and be willing to spreda more substance throughout his oped writing as the NYT editors know how to do, they would be more willing to publish him and even support his campaign as they do Obama’s.
Jul 21, 2008 - 10:59 pm 29. Walt:Stick a fork in it, the New York Times is done. I stopped reading it years ago.
Jul 22, 2008 - 3:08 am 30. Chuckles the Clown:dishonest “news” paper rabidly supporting dishonest politician? Isn’t their motto “All the news we see fit to print”?
Jul 22, 2008 - 3:26 am 31. Broadsword:Ah the Times, from “All the news that fit we print” to and word rhyming with fit, “we print”. Or this slogan, ” The NY Times: We distort, We deride”.
Jul 22, 2008 - 3:47 am 32. Augean Stables » Arrogance? Fear? Both? NYT Refuses McCain Editorial:The top masts of this flag ship are aflame, and may they burn to the waterline!
[...] any case, as Rick Moran at PJMedia puts it, the museum that documents the demise of the print MSM newspapers in the early 21st century will [...]
Jul 22, 2008 - 4:00 am 33. Bill Perron:Many years ago when I was a high school student ( before the illegal aliens took over ) I worked part time at a car wash, we used the NYT to wipe the windows clean, it did a very good no streaks job, I’m sure it is still good for that.
Jul 22, 2008 - 5:38 am 34. The Right To Bear Arms » What Media Bias?:[...] More about the whole thing here. [...]
Jul 22, 2008 - 6:45 am 35. Anonymous:David: “from what I have heard, the submitted piece was on the level of Freshman 101 essay, with vagueness, generalities and a bit of anti-Obama snarkiness instead of substance.”
Try reading something before you comment on it. I DID read the piece and the NT Times should have printed it. Their reasons for not printing it are pure B.S. It looks like they want to get McCain to give a concrete timeline for troop withdrawal but McCain is too smart to fall for that. Besides he said the troops would be pulled out as the situation on the ground warrants.
Jul 22, 2008 - 7:27 am 36. John:I don’t know why it posted as “Anonymous:” That was kinda strange.
David: “from what I have heard, the submitted piece was on the level of Freshman 101 essay, with vagueness, generalities and a bit of anti-Obama snarkiness instead of substance.”
Try reading something before you comment on it. I DID read the piece and the NT Times should have printed it. Their reasons for not printing it are pure B.S. It looks like they want to get McCain to give a concrete timeline for troop withdrawal but McCain is too smart to fall for that. Besides he said the troops would be pulled out as the situation on the ground warrants.
Jul 22, 2008 - 7:43 am 37. ursa major:With the shrill screeds of the likes of Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd and the economic lunacy of Paul Krugman as the mainstay of the editorial pages, one would think that even a braindead publisher like Pinch would come to his senses. Rupert Murdoch has transformed the Wall St. Journal into a formidable competitor to the NYT. And he has done it by providing fair and balanced op-ed pages similar to what he accomplished with Fox News.
Jul 22, 2008 - 7:54 am 38. Intel Agents:Well, I too read the McCain rebuttal, er op-ed piece. Y’now… as an avid reader without any secondary edjumacation, I thought it was AWFUL! It was nothing more than a snarky comeback piece without substance. You can say, “I BELIEVE” all you want, but it did nothing to give McCain’s platform or vision a real boost.
I liked McCain a lot last time around, and even then I had age concerns. I’ve read his position pieces, and try to get info from all the news sources I can. Both here and abroad. I find that the O-haters are really just that – “haters”. People who really bring out the worst in our country and then wrap it in a flag and try shove it down our throats as loudly as possible.
I truly hope that after November 2 we can actually get back to the business of being a country united, rather than divided – and I mean that with all my heart, regardless of who is sworn into office come January.
If you’re so far RIGHT that LIBS make you gag, or so far LEFT that the NEO-CONS sicken you, then you have simply become the charicature your opponent made you out to be!
An EXTREME MODERATE for OBAMA in ‘08
Jul 22, 2008 - 10:06 am 39. Howard:THE FOURTH ESTATE IS STARTING RESEMBLE THE THIRD REICH.
Jul 22, 2008 - 10:58 am 40. Increase Mather:Like Joseph Goebbels, American main stream media has replaced objectivity, integrity, and free choice with one sided reporting, that reflects their bias for Barack Obama. The American Press used to be the last bastion of truth. When special interests got out of hand, the press came to the rescue and exposed them to the public. Now, the press is the special interest with their own agenda.
I have been following presidentail campaigns since 1956……my family were huge Stevenson fans.
I voted for McGovern, (I was very young) and Clinton, the first time. So, I am no rightwing ideologue.
I have NEVER seen anything like what is going on with the media today. The bias is SO huge, I am actually beginning to wonder if some in the MSM aren’t on the take?
Jul 22, 2008 - 11:36 am 41. Non-Objective One:With all deference to many of the views expressed herein – I think we McCain supporters owe the NYT, not to mention ABC, NBC and CBS, a great big thanks. We Americans expect at least some degree of objectivity from the news media, and when we obviously don’t get it, the backlash will begin. I believe that all of their coverage will be judged by what it is, partisan drivel,(even if by some miracle they try to be objective before the election) by the vast majority of independent voters. Their credibility is gone beyond repair. So – in a perverse way – thank you for not publishing Sen . McCain’s editorial response. I respect your editorial bias.
That is indeed a sad commentary on the state of the MSM today. Here I am thanking them for their bias, not to mention their stupidity, because it will help “my” candidate. I can hardly wait to have a drink or two or three at the newspaper’s wake.
So – Thank You – NYT.
Jul 22, 2008 - 3:52 pm 42. Nightly Ramble:I’m number two!; FCC;Peak oil and the end of the world; more | BitsBlog:[...] Rick Moran to the reaction list on the McCain op-ed rejection by the New York Times I mentioned this morning. [...]
Jul 22, 2008 - 4:09 pm 43. Chuck:Hey John, don’t whine about it- Phil Gramm. Looks like the media love fest is officially over for McCain. Let the stalking horse march to the finish line.
Jul 23, 2008 - 7:40 am 44. gnubi:Would re-invoking the fairness doctrine guarantee McCain equal coverage? Guarantee his right to go column-inch for column-inch with BHO? Somehow, I doubt that’s Pelosi’s intent.
If the arrogant know-nothings that work at the NYT would publicly admit their biases killed the paper, that would be ever so tasty.
Jul 24, 2008 - 4:20 am 45. McCain and Obama both tied to the mortgage scandal | Jason Hayes - Musing:[...] NY Times article (take it with a grain of salt – the NY Times is well known for its overwhelming pro-Obama/anti-Republican bias) discusses the well-funded lobbying position that McCain’s campaign manager occupied for five [...]
Sep 22, 2008 - 11:28 am