The NYT is a fine example of why we need FOX...who makes them accountable for their own partisan postions. I love how the left wants to fool people into thinking that they are fair & balanced when they are not. I hope reasonable people will see the left for what they are...people who want to keep moving the mark of decency & fairness.

McCain Campaign: New York Times Blocked Op-Ed Response to Obama

The New York Times on Friday blocked an opinion piece submitted by John McCain to the newspaper shortly after it printed a piece by his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, McCain campaign officials confirmed to FOX News on Monday.

Obama’s piece detailed his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan. While McCain’s proposed piece also discussed Iraq, The Times told McCain’s advisers that it would not accept the op-ed in its current form because it did not offer new information. Obama’s speech previewed a series of speeches leading up to a highly publicized trip to war zones in the Middle East.

“I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the op-ed page. However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach,” Times op-ed editor David Shipley wrote the campaign via an e-mail later distributed by McCain’s team.

“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. 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,” Shipley wrote.

Shipley, who was named deputy editor in January 2003, served in the Clinton administration as a senior presidential speechwriter and special assistant to the president from 1995 to 1997.

McCain campaign Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker said the two candidates “have very different world views” about Iraq and the campaign wanted an opportunity to state its candidate’s view.

“We have elections in this country, not coronations and it’s unfortunate that The New York Times wouldn’t allow their readers to hear from John McCain and make their own judgment,” Hazelbaker told FOX News.

“John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times,” added McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

The New York Times issued a statement defending its process of posting op-eds.

“It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. 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. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously,” said Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis.

Obama’s op-ed ran on July 14, days before the Democratic presidential candidate departed for Afghanistan and Iraq as part of a congressional delegation that received coverage from all three broadcast networks’ news services. It is the first time the networks have traveled overseas with a candidate.

Hazelbaker said that it’s not her job to police the media coverage, but the campaign would have liked to have “made our case directly to the voters.”

“We think the American voter is smart enough to make the call on their own,” she said.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/

Here is the article that McCain wrote that the NYT would not publish...

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/the-mccain-op-ed-the-new-york-times-wouldnt-publish/

Robots and walls need FOX.....this my opinion .

For the record, CNN broke this story.

why we need fox. i need another good comedy show.fox unfair and unbalanced,

all i can say is wow what is the big deal. seriously the editor didnt do anything wrong.


oh but look im a liberal....

but i hate to admit this, but new york times should be ashamed of themself.

Motion passed .

CNN, what a surprise!

we call fox bush state tv.

My point exactly... while some rebuke FOX, they have no claim on what is fair or balanced when they act such a partisan fashion.

Thank you for pointing it out.

So now... it's been ESTABLISHED that those here who want to discount FOX are really the partisan rabids who really want to stop any disagreeing voice.

That's what I call irrational hatred... the Archie Bunkers of today are the left in this country. That should scare everyone.

BTW...that's why circulation of the NYT is soooooo down today. People are tired of reading junk news.

FOX is popular because they report independant of what all the rest report. People tune in to get another perspective.

Like it or not...that's what FOX offers... ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE!

objective journalism died in the 70s and anyone who takes the speculation, conjuncture and opinion that is dished out today for news needs to pull their heads out of their butts. ALL the "news" broadcasters are corporate lackeys spouting the corporate line..If you want "news" you have to search for it and also look outside of your own country to really get a clear idea of whats going on there...Independent, objective news can be found but youre not going to get it from corporate sponsored ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et all.....they are there to tell you what you want to hear, not what you need to know...

for the record

i was not supporting anything in the op other than the ny times op ed since he did nothing wrong.


i do not watch the news because like symbel said it is speculation and opinion.

The information age...there is a site or channel that will tell each of us just what we want to hear and leave out everything that doesn't support their position.

There is little intelligent political debate available on tv, cable etc., just tons of bluster, name calling along with the us and them mentality that keeps these bastards in business and keeps the country mired in problems.

What's the best way to control people? Keep them afraid and uninformed. Grats fellow citizens you are letting it happen!

For those whiners who think it's liberal bias that was the cause of the NYT rejection of the McCain piece.

Yesterday, the Drudge Report revealed that the New York Times had rejected a draft op-ed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), which rebutted an earlier one by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). As the Times explained, it was happy to publish a piece from McCain, but the one submitted was editorially subpar — it didn’t have any new information.

The right wing rushed to defend McCain yesterday, calling the Times’s decision “offensive” and “stupid” and claiming that it was part of a conspiracy to to help Obama win the election:

Weekly Standard’s Dean Barnett: “Nobody has ever heard of anything like this ever happening before.” [Hugh Hewitt Show, 7/21/08]

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton: “For them to say that to - - the Republican presidential nominee is offensive.” [Hannity and Colmes, 7/21/08]

Conservative Pundit **** Morris: “You don’t tell a president to the United States candidate what to write.” [Hannity and Colmes, 7/21/08]

Former White House Adviser Karl Rove: “I thought the decision by The New York Times was arrogant, condescending and stupid.” [On the Record with Greta, 7/21/08]

Bolton also said that he “may never publish another op-ed in ‘The New York Times’ after this.”

(READ THIS CAREFULLY PLEASE WHINERS)

Yesterday on CNN, Center for American Progress Action Fund Senior Vice President and former Clinton Deputy Press Secretary Jennifer Palmieri emphasized that even as a sitting president, Bill Clinton had “many” op-eds rejected by the Times:

When I worked for President Clinton, “The New York Times” rejected many op-eds written by him as a sitting president of the United States. They don’t just give up space to a candidate because their opponent has space. You can’t just go — you can’t go to “The New York Times” editorial page and say I want to say what’s wrong with the other guy. They want to leverage their space, which is very valuable, to force you to say something you haven’t said before. And I think that they turned down McCain not because they like Obama but because McCain, all he was doing in his piece was criticizing Obama and they wanted him to put him on the spot to say more.

Well I don't know ...check this out...now I'm not saying I'm likin' McCain either...but the NYT is spinning out.... Fair & balanced means fair & balanced.



New York Times To McCain: We'll Publish You When You Agree With Us

All sorts of folks are atwitter about the New York Times' latest editorial decision. Last week, they published a piece by Senator Barack Obama featuring his plan to end the war in Iraq. Senator John McCain submitted his own piece this week, and it was rejected. However, he was given a pat on the head and asked to try again.

Hot Air got the text of the rejection note, and it's quite enlightening.

Here is the key paragraph, where Mr. Shipley -- a former Bill Clinton speechwriter and the current Op-Ed Editor for the New York Times -- says what sorts of changes would need to be made for Senator McCain's essay:

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. 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.

One key point of John McCain's Iraq policy is NO TIMETABLES. As I understand it, he's more interested in winning the war than studying a calendar.

So, in essence, the New York Times says they won't publish John McCain's response to Barack Obama's essay unless McCain tosses aside the key point of his entire policy.

I'm tempted to be outraged at this incident, but then I remember -- it's only the New York Times.

It's not like it's over something that really matters any more.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2008/07/21/all-sorts-of-folks-are.php

Here yu go...

Washington Times...

Poll: News media biased for Obama
S.A. Miller and Jennifer Harper
Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Just as a new poll showed most voters think the news media is biased in favor of Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign, the New York Times spurred criticism by refusing to publish an op-ed article on the Iraq war by Republican rival Sen. John McCain.

The Times said Mr. McCain's piece was not up to snuff, unlike one it ran July 14 by Mr. Obama of Illinois that presented a 16-month pullout timetable for Iraq, and the newspaper suggested how it should be rewritten.

"The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech)," David Shipley, editor of the Times' Op-Ed page, said in an e-mail to the McCain campaign. "While Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans."

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said Mr. McCain shouldn't be punished for being consistent with his positions, and the Republican Party said the critique smacked of censorship.

The flap erupted as a new Rasmussen Reports survey showed nearly 60 percent of voters say Mr. Obama gets better treatment from journalists. Nearly half of voters - 49 percent - said reporters would help Mr. Obama, compared with 14 percent who said Mr. McCain benefited from friendly coverage.

The Rasmussen survey suggested the perceived trend is intensifying, with those seeing a pro-Obama slant jumping 5 percentage points from last month while views regarding Mr. McCain stayed the same.

Mr. Shipley in the e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, said the newspaper would be eager to publish an essay by Mr. McCain that "mirrored" Mr. Obama's piece and articulated in concrete terms how Mr. 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," Mr. Shipley wrote.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson said Mr. McCain's strategy for victory in Iraq is not based on New York Times' requests.

"Unlike Barack Obama, Senator McCain will continue to advocate a winning strategy war based on conditions on the ground, not an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal," she said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/22/poll-news-media-biased-for-Obama/

BBC!

All the major networks are pro Administration and spread its propaganda every day .

All the major networks are pro Administration and spread its propaganda every day .