News and Commentary on Politics, Media and Culture

Funny, the Telegraph UK calls the New York Times “America’s most prestigious paper“. I guess that’s true if prestigious is some sort of Euro speak for idiotic.

Nevertheless, the New York Times has once again shown America why it is falling off the place of the planet in terms of sales alongside journalistic integrity.

In the Times most recent bout of idiocy they rejected an op-ed from John McCain and requested that he rewrite it to be more like Barack Obama’s. The New York Times is demanding that the Republican Presidential candidate rewrite an editorial on their terms.

Perhaps John McCain will finally wise up and realize that these cracker jack editors are nothing more than 2-bit Democratic party shills. Matt Drudge had the scoop.

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.’

MORE

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.]

MORE

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.’

How far in the bag is the media for Barack Obama? Again the Telegraph UK gives us a hint.

A recent study found that the news television networks had run more than double the number of stories about Mr Obama than Mr McCain since early June.

What was John McCain saying that had the New York Times all full of itself

The opening of the senator’s submitted article read: “In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation ‘hard’ but not ‘hopeless’.

“Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 per cent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.”

I think John McCain actually should thank the New York Times for the favor.

Meanwhile Michelle Malkin notes that Rasmussen has noticed that “Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win“. Some revelation.

 Send this post a Friend  

Trackback URI | Comments RSS