Monday, July 21, 2008

NY Times rejects McCain op-ed


His report begins - - -

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'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.'

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again: 'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

[Shipley served in the Clinton Administration from 1995 until 1997 as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter.] (Who's surprised by that? - - JinC)

A top McCain source claims the paper simply does not agree with the senator's Iraq policy, and wants him to change it, not "re-work the draft."

McCain writes in the rejected essay: 'Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. 'I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,' he said on January 10, 2007. 'In fact, I think it will do the reverse.' ....

The rest of the story’s here. Drudge follows his story with the text of McCain’s op-ed so you can judge it and the NYT for yourself.

I often refer to the NYT as Obama’s Times and the Anything for Obama Times.

I think I’ve got that right with Shipley providing one more example of that.

Your turn.


Anonymous said...

And they wonder why circulation is diminishing so rapidly. Oh, I forgot, it's the internet's fault.

Anonymous said...

I am no longer surprised when the NY Slimes acts like Izvestia. I'm old enough to remember when The Gray Lady actually lived up to the motto "All the news that's fit to print." What really scorches me is the number of people calling themselves Republican who buy that rag, "but (they claim) only for the food/theater/book section." Every cent that is paid into that pit of dishonesty helps keep the boat afloat; stop buying it and maybe it'll go away.
Tarheel Hawkeye

Anonymous said...

I think there may be consequences this time Hawk. It's all over the news and from what I gather, people are angry. Time will tell, of course, but it will be interesting to follow. Perhaps, in addition to a "McClatchy Watch", there should be a "Times Watch".

zonga said...

"The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles."

Perhaps if McCain can compose and submit his own essay "My Plan for Iraq" rather than an Obama rebuttal it will be printed as a stand alone piece. That might make more sense for an op-ed. Do newspapers usually publish rebuttal/dueling op-eds?

Drudge is read by millions more people than the NYT, so McCain got a big splash anyway.

Hopefully the discussion will eventually stem from the differences between the two plans for Iraq.

Anonymous said...

John -

First, to Anon at 5:06 - There is a Times watch. It's at:

Unfortunately, after I read a few of the articles on timeswatch, I got the feeling that the paper at this point has so much wrong with it that it cannot be trusted for anything, and in that case why bother reading it or anything about it.

Of course, I am not surprised. Nothing the NYT does these days surprises me. As I have said once before, it is now simply a bigger version of the N&O.

As David said on learning of Saul and Jonathan's deaths - Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Jack in Silver Spring

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for McCain, the Times does reserve for itself the right to determine what it will print on the letters and editorial page - which in turn shapes what its readers read. However, by his high handed remarks, Shipley has not done his employer a service. Instead he has reinforced the widely held belief that the "Grey Lady' has an agenda - in this case the election of Obama as president. While the flap over the McCain op-ed piece will dissipate, it will not be forgotten and will resurrect when a similar situation will occur in the future (and occur it will - probably sooner rather than later given the shortening of periods between "gaffes" that seem to occur at The Times). What will be of interest is how this is handled by the Times Public Editor/Ombudsman as I am sure that he has received much in the way of comment on the issue. This Sunday's edition should be interesting for that alone.