Posted on 07/21/2008 2:14:20 PM PDT by Raquel
No one I know is surprised that the New York Times neglected to publish McCain’s editorial on Iraq, even though it published a piece written by Obama on the same topic just one week ago. Not even the McCain campaign, which will no doubt raise funds from conservative stalwarts in retribution, are troubled by the editorial board decision.
By email, the Times notified the McCain campaign that they would re-consider publishing his article, if McCain writes a piece that “mirrors” the Obama one. There is no need at this point because McCain’s editorial is front page news for two reasons: (1) McCain is the presumptive Republican candidate for President and his opinions regarding Iraq mean something, and (2) the Times’ comes off as biased towards Obama whereby fueling anger among conservative journalists.
In all fairness, the Times did not always reject McCain’s views. One time fans of McCain, the “darling” of the media, they described him as a “maverick” for being a politician that acts independently. The Times have not used that term as of late, but that will change, as soon as McCain flips back to his more liberal side. Then the editorial board would have reason to define him as a maverick again, but also, they could agree with his opinion. Agreeing with one’s opinion is the litmus test the editorial board at the Times is looking for.
(Excerpt) Read more at raquelokyay.com ...
For what it’s worth, which I suppose is not all that much, North Star Writers Group has posted McCain’s piece:
http://www.northstarwriters.com/jsm001.htm
By refusing to run it the Times has made it a must read. Drudge has it which means a lot more people will see it.
McCain spent 8 years kissing their butts at the Slimes and this is what he got for it. Serves him right.
so the Times has exposed its bias AND at the same time circulated the story even more...
ha ha ha
LOL, the Times is so predictable.
I read that piece early this morning -——— it’s not an editorial, but a childish, petulant series of attacks on Obama, and as such, it has no editorial value at all, whch means the NYT was right and McCain should stop whining. Really.
It’s not an editorial. It is an op-ed piece in which the op-ed writer, in this case, McCain, is writng to express his/her own opinions. Quite simply, the NY Times did not like what McCain wrote. I read his article and have no problem with it appearing as an op-ed piece. The same goes for the op-ed article that Obama wrote or may write in the future. You don’t have to agree with it.
I hope this is a valuable lesson for him and if he does become President, he will realize that kissing liberal hiney does nothing for you. I can dream, right?
Simply put, the Times does not agree with McCain's opinion, and that is why they refused to print it.
And if you changed one word in the above quote, from Obama to Bush, the Times could not, in all fairness, print any op-ed pieces at all.
I hope this is a valuable lesson for him and if he does become President, he will realize that kissing liberal hiney does nothing for you. I can dream, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.