Why the New York Times were right to reject John McCain's article

The New York Times has rejected a piece by Senator John McCain, having already run one by Barack Obama. And you know what? I think they may be right.

Here's how I would have dealt with the two articles if I had been been given them as Comment (OpEd) Editor here at what the Americans insist on calling the London Times.

First, having run an Obama piece on Iraq I would be keen on having a matching McCain piece. Keen but not desperate. Over time it is good to have balance, but it is not necessary to have tit for tat pieces every time.

Second, the job of a Comment Editor is to provide readers with an insight into the political debate. One is not part of the official machinery - required to provide space for rebuttal. If that was a requirement, President Bush would be able to commandeer half a page every day in order to reply to his critics.

So there is no absolute requirement for the NYT to run a McCain piece. Naturally, however, the Editor should want his readers to know what McCain thinks on such a big question. And this might be a good moment to have a piece by him. So why not run it?

Well, political pieces by elected officials or candidates can often be very boring - safe, unrevealing and tediously partisan. In general I required such pieces to jump over a pretty high importance barrier before I ran them.

Obama's piece vaulted that hurdle. It outlined his views, pretty much avoided point scoring, and dealt with the issue.

McCain's piece, on the other hand, knocked the hurdle over. It wasn't about Iraq. It was about Obama. If I received it I would have done exactly what the NYT did - send it back and ask them to redraft it so that it was about Iraq and was more, well, interesting.

Why was I only able to say I "think" they "may" be right? Because I don't know exactly what they asked the Senator's staff to do to the piece. But if they simply asked for a piece that matched Obama's because, like Obama's it was actually about his views on Iraq, well then I am right behind them. 

Comments

[Wade]

Yep, Obama's article wasn't directed at anyone and just outlined his oh-so-well defined plan- 16 month withdrawal, "carefully"-so much detail! I am reeling with all the information. What a god of politics.

That's why Obama said "unlike Senator McCain" multiple times in his article, practically demanding a response. Then McCain mentions Obama, and it is "about Obama" and not about his position, which he also discusses in his article.

I can't believe anyone would bend over so far backwards to support the NYT's clearly biased rejection of McCain's article.

Do you really think you would support the NYT if they had rejected Obama's article?

[Jessica Ziegler]

Or it could be that the NYT is a stinking, liberal rag.

[Nomad]

There's a big difference between the two examples. The British press is much more partisan, no one there pretends to be an impartial referee.

In the U.S., the NYTimes and the rest of the print media do aspire to that particular conceit. As a result, when they do something like this they open themselves to criticism that they favor one side.

U.S. journalism has been moving towards the British model for a long time now as public confidence in the referee claims of papers like the Times erodes - but we're still nowhere near the same level of outlet polarization. The Times just moved us another step closer today.

[Nick B]

If journalists generally held high standards about separating fact from comment, or even in respect of the quality of writing, this argument might hold water. However, the fact is that most journalists have given up attempting to be honest brokers of facts, and freely interweave fact and opinion. On this basis, the NYT McCain decision stands out clearly as what it truly is: a piece of partisan publishing by a paper dedicated (with its buddies at NPR) to a particular political goal.

I doubt any clear-thinking person will be offended: the biases of these threads of the media are well known.

[Shawn Collins]

I think what is "interesting" depends on your perspective.

I've got to wonder how many submissions by Obama have ever been rejected by the NY Times.

[Susan]

Daniel, I might have a little more faith in your opinion if your headline was grammatically correct. NYT is a paper, singular. One entity. It should read, "Why the NTY was right to reject John McCain's article".

And I'm a bit skeptical as to who actually wrote the op-ed piece. Obama or his staff. He's shown more than once that he needs to read from a teleprompter in order to get through a speech...and he still can't do it.

[Mark G@lliher]

I am flabbergasted by your sense that Obama's piece "pretty much avoided point scoring." It opened with Obama's favorite 'point': "Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began." And it ended, "for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges." In between, it hit each and every "point" in the orthodox anti-war litany. The NYT should not have run Obama's press release. Having chosen to do so, it should also have run McCain's response.

[Benson]

Two problems:

A) The NYT excuse was that McCain was short on specifics. Obama wasn't exactly throwing details at you, either.
B) The editor of the op-eds is a bad messenger. He worked several years in the Clinton White House, so he's not exactly unbiased.

[GD Andrews]

Interestingly, we are to rely on your opinion of the article by McCain and not be given the chance to read it and decide for ourselves. Applicable or not, the stench of the NYT shaping voter perception is there.

[JD]

Headline: "The New York Times were right...". First sentence: "the New York Times has". So which is it to be - singular or plural?

[Jim Miller]

According to Rasmussen, just one in four Americans believe that journalists are trying to be fair in this campaign. With the help of the New York Times, and journalists like Daniel Finkelstein, I think we can get that down to one in eight by the election.

It will be hard to get it down to single digits, but with your help, even that may be possible. (Incidentally, you should mention the past Clinton ties of the man who made the decision.)

[mesquito]

In this narrow case you may well be right. However, in a media environment in which the mainstream outlets are appallingly biased and one-sided, it is just more spittle in the face of Republicans and conservatives.

[James]

I disagree, are you not here to promote free speech? If McCain chooses to submit a piece that is not like Obama's and his views on Iraq then that is his perogative.
I hope some blogger gets to publish McCain's opinion if the NY Times don't think it suits their agenda.
Why don't the NY Times just write the piece for McCain themselves?
I mean really....is this what we have come to?
I personally would prefer to hear what McCain really thinks on Iraq rather than what some editor thinks we 'should' hear!

[Anthony Mangan]

Why do leftists always try to make excuses for a lying paper like the NYT? Is the theory that if you repeat the lie often enough it becomes the truth still believed by the Socialist/Communist element in the press?

[Concerned Citizen]

Go to Gretawire. I think Greta has it posted.
Now don't edit my comment, please.

[Jimbo]

I can't find out: was the McCain article unsolicited?

[atomic]

If THIS is the typical attitude of the British press....then i feel sorry for its citizens. sheeeese!

[Bob Kaye]

The answer is simple. The NY Times, and most of the rest of what is called "The Mainstream Media" here in the U.S. is in the tank for Obama. Likewise, the 3 alphabet networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) are in the tank for Obama. Which is why Obama's 3 press secretaries (Katie, Brian and Charles) have joined him on his trip.

So let's not kid ourselves. The NY Times and the rest have long ago given up any semblance of objectivity. They are Socialists and they are doing their utmost to promote the Socialist candidate, Obama.

[Robert de Jong]

Finkelstein:

Do you reread the bull you pose as justification for rejection of McCain's op-ed? Explain for your (gulp) readers about the "unlike Senator McCain" remark made numerous times in Obama's op-ed. Orwell's 1984 is alive and well at the "London Times."

[Bob Evans]

Sadly, the acolytes of "new journalism" forsake the demand for objectivity in what they present to the reading public. When they pick and choose which mainline political views they publish, they simply become an arm--a spin doctor, if you will--of their favored element of the body politic. Presenting both most certainly is not tit for tat, but responsible journalism serving the commonweal.

[christopher Phelan]

American newspapers don't, as far as I remember, refer to your newspaper as The London Times. It is more usual to see The Times (London).

[JB]

Remember when Galloway was getting money from Saddam? It wouldn't surprise me to find out that the NYT is getting money from Al Queda.

[dualdiagnosis]

This is so disingenuous. I would bet the house that if it were the other way around and a Murdoch paper did this to Obama the shrieks from the Obamaniacs (MSM people) would be heard 'round the world.

[Steve E]

Susan, (19:58:57); a telling, if nuanced, way to tell an English person from an American is to read or hear their use of noun declension, especially for organisations. The English nearly always use the plural. So, in England "Ford have introduced a new car", in America "Ford has introduced a new car".
GD Andrews, (21:38:03), read Drudge for the full article. A perfectly well reasoned and argued piece which courteously, but forcefully, tears holes in Obama's weak arguments.

[Iain]

Susan,

You are worng to correct the plural to the singular; it can be both "were" and "was". It is well accepted that companies can be defined as either.

[MissClarity]

It's just downright embarassing to cover anything McCain. It's sooooo very dotless. In other words, connecting the dots is OK but who can find the dots in anything McCain? He's maturing his pathetics and it's just getting moldy. Sorry, wish is were otherwise but it ain't.

[prudence eely bond mcguire]

The modern press is one 'stinking' disgusting 'subjective' disgrace with some exceptions. I just hope the people of America disregard these biased articles and make up their own minds.

[richard miniter]

My fellow Americans,

Your grammatical point is wrong. British English is different from American English; "the New York Times were..." is correct is British English and, indeed, before Daniel Webster, was correct in American English.

On the more substantive point, the New York Times is under no obligation to run anything or, even, to be impartial in what it does run.

And, as a former WSJ editorial page member, editors do not like to run tit-for-tat pieces--they try to run pieces that might interest readers. Straight rebuttals do not do that, generally. Why didn't McCain at least try the re-write?

[HisDogBelle]

I think that many of you are missing the point. There are many newspapers you can buy. Each has its own opinions and slants in it. The NYT is not owned or sponsored by the state, it is a privately published paper. They publish what they think is relevant. If they miss the mark too often, people buy different papers and they go out of business. Equally, if they published every article sent to them without filtering out the rubbish ones - no matter who it is written by, whether it be the president or the janitor - then that is not called publishing a newspaper. That is blogging.

[Wil]

It is plainly obvious to even pre-high schoolers that the major and over-riding purpose of the NYT is to get the Democratic candidate-du-jour (it currently happens to be Obama) elected by any means necessary.

All else is pointless shouting and running in circles.

[S. Frost]

Why the New York Times were right to reject John McCain's article

Good grief. Since when is a newspaper plural?

[Alcuin]

Disagree. The NYT is being disingenuous, and its objections are petty and partisan. Read McCann's article at theaugeanstables.com, and see if you can see anything objectinable about is, apart from showing Obama up for the lightweight vascillating shapeshifter he is.

[Honore Greenwood]

I could sleep much easier believing Obama to be a Socialist, it's not knowing what he really is that troubles me. McCain is totally transparent in his "Keep things just as they are" campaign.

[Susie]

I read the piece McCain wrote on the Drudge Report. It was a poorly written diatribe. If the NYT editor was as biased as all you commentators make out he'd have printed the piece as it was as it makes McCain look stupid.

[Old Enough]

You McCain-iacs are so hypocritical to indicate you're being deprived of McCain's views on Iraq. Who in this world doesn't know his flawed views about this war?? Pick any day to listen to the news and he gives you the same tired old lines without any reasoning. McCain says we must "win" in Iraq. But he has never, and will never, articulate just what winning is!! Who is going to surrender to give us this "win"? Who is going to lay down their weapons so our soldiers can walk away? That's the ONLY thing new that John McCain could tell us right now. And he will not because he, just like Bush, wants to just keep the war going....forever.

[Okame]

McCain's rejected article quoted Obama directly five times, named him ten times directly and twenty times indirectly. What title would any good editor give the article?

[Steve Czaja]

If poorly written diatribes were sufficient for exclusion, then perhaps someone can explain to me how Bob Herbert or that annoying theatre reviewer who is an expert on all things- Frank Rich- get published. There are no quality benchmarks for opinion pieces in this paper, trust me on that.
So, if not a quality question, then we must turn to the content. The Times simply did not agree with the piece and rejected it for just that reason. The Times no longer reports the news; it makes it.
McCain should have submitted the piece with the words :"State Secrets" on the envelope. It would have made front page, above the fold.
You all are aware, I assume, that we do have more than one newspaper here in America. McCain's rebuttal will be seen by more people than Barack's bromides. And McCain's words will be trusted by more, as well.

[Rosario]

My understanding as a reader and not a publisher of newspapers is the op-ed pages are used to put forth positions the paper wants broadcast. Obama's article appeared in the op-ed not the news pages and obviously had the blessing of their Clintonista editor. I see no obligation to publish anything by McCain especially if it is unfavorable to the paper's favored candidate.

[donquijoterocket]

Why is it that none of the regurgitaters of wingnut blathering points "socialist","communist" etc. can seem to remember that NYT reporter Judy miller was the almost perfect stenographer for any WMD claim put forth by Chalabi and the Bush administration in the run up to the Iraqi fiasco?They also need to talk to any aware Vietnam veteran and listen to how reviled the NYT was then as a primary cheerleader for that fiasco. They might also recall the words of now NYT columnist Bill Kristol:I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

[David B. Monier-williams]

Most of the comments here are, vollkommen quatsch."

The NYT asked McCain to re-write the article and specifically to include withdrawal timetables. In other words the NYT wants to dictate foreign policy.

The NYT is now no longer a newspaper but just the spinmeister for Socialist Obama. But then both Timeses are both way out there in far left fieled.

[John Bell]

The only difference betwen the two of them is that McCain wants to keep two unwinnable wars going while Obama only wants one.

[Dominic Graham de Montrose]

The trouble with Dan's eomment is that the US media - NYT in particular - constantly goes on about its impartiality. Therefore, for their former Clinton aide OpEd to reject the Republican candidate's article after having printed an equivalent from his Democrat counterpart undermines their claim.

[Phil Woodland]

Daniel, please try to be a little less gleeful in you biases or will have to start showing you the yellow journalist card.

[Isher]

The comments here are absurd. The McCain camp submitted something they knew wouldn't fly and then instead of altering it to be a professional piece they leaked all of the information including the full article to The Drudge Report.

Go read a factual article on why the McCain piece was rejected:

1) It had NO new information in it. Obama's piece had NEW information in it, which was made public first in the NYT and only revealed in a speech afterward.

2) It was simply an attack piece, full of ad hominem gibberish. It is one thing to attack, quite another to submit little more than bitter invective.

I realize that the neocons have to have their say on this, but PLEASE stop ignoring facts. The reason people like Obama so much is that for once there's an intelligent candidate for president who has a chance, and once again the republicans are fighting intelligence by trying to yell it down into submission.

[gbj11]

Why should McCain's piece have to meet any of the NY Times' so-called standards? It's a rebuttal to an op-ed piece written by his Democratic opponent, which was every bit as biased and slanted in Obama's favor as McCain's was in his. So what? What did they expect? This is media elitism at its worst. 'Liberals' should be very worried at the implications here; who can say for certain which groups' thoughts or ideas will next be designated as 'worthless?' A liberal used to be regarded as a guardian of freedom of speech, someone who ensured all sides were heard. How times (so to speak) have changed! Why doesn't the NYT just write McCain's editorial for him? That way it will say exactly what they want it to say. Clearly, a liberal lock on power is much more to be feared than a conservative one, as liberals today care nothing about preserving our most basic freedoms.

[Rod]

Finkelstein must be joking? It's a election. There are two candidates. Their comments don't need to meet some journalist's "standards" to be run in the public interest. Who elected the journalists? Nanny-papers?! I had been unaware the NYT did this, living in the UK, but I've deleted the NYT's bookmark from my web browser upon learning it. If I want the Obama campaigns view I can instead consult it's website. A press outlet that decides for me which candidate I need to hear deserves to be devoutly ignored.

[pappy, USA]

Of course the NYT had every right to reject the McCain piece.
They are, after all, a private publication that can accept or reject any input from any source. Many people confuse "journalism" with "ethics", which is nonsence. "Journalism" is private enterprize operated for a profit. If the NYT publishes articles perceived by the liberal majority of its readership as "good" then it will sell more papers and have more online eyeballs which generates more ad income.

[LARRY, USA]

The NYT a liberal paper? The paper of Judith Miller and Michael Gordon?

Neocons have for years painted the U.S. press as "liberal" to fool people into believing that the truth is always to the right of what they read. But the truth is just as often to the left. Critical thinking is the responsibility of the reader.

[JB]

Start believing in Scripture. The NYT is so anxious to elect Obama that the anti-Christ would fit them quite nicely.

[Steve B]

As was written earlier, the latest Rasmussen survey suggests that most Americans believe the coverage is slanted in favor of Obama. In fact, there is even one cable TV network (MSNBC) that should be called the Obama Channel. But when all is said and done, including the NYT efforts to win it for Obama, the people will speak in the voting booths. I'm looking forward to that day!

[William Davos]

Sir - It is simple reasoning that should indicate to you why the London Times should be more properly referred to as such, and that the New York Times should in fact be known simply as "The Times".

A newspaper's significance is measured by one factor: circulation. Circulation - and circulation alone - rightly determines the level of impact and influence a paper maintains within society. Archaic notions of 'longevity' are only for those relics of history fallen by the wayside.

By this measure - and any level of rational thinking - the London Times is certainly junior varsity by comparison.

Would you not agree?

[V. J. Homer]

As a moderate, sort've leftish Democrat, I used to think of the NYT as a trustworthy paper. In the past few months the NYT has been destroying any faith I had in it, as it goes to unprecedented extremes in order to get Obama elected.

I've read McCain's article, and agree with McCain that Obama needs to acknowedge that he was horribly mistaken about the likely effect of the surge in Iraq. As long as Obama and the NYT try to bury their heads in the sand about mistaken military judgements Obama has held, there's no motivation for Obama to reassess his thinking about our (American) military.

And God help us if Obama becomes our president without reassessing his military stances. We may wind up in Iraq forever if Obama doesn't accept that he has much to learn about how best to proceed militarily and/or diplomatically in the Middle East.

[Shannon]

Wow, this author is not too bright.

The title is, "Why the New York Times were right to reject John McCain's article".

He concludes with, "Why was I only able to say I "think" they "may" be right? Because I don't know exactly what they asked the Senator's staff to do to the piece."

Apparently he doesn't have an editor.

[no spam]

Daniel - You've got to be kidding me, right?

[robmac]

I see that torturing logic to kiss up to Obama is not limited to the NYT. Dude, the reader WANTS the cadidates to self-define their diffrences - that's what electing a President is all about.

[George]

The NYT not a liberal paper? Let's be serious. It is well documented (do your homework) that the mainstream media (NYT in particular) is extraordinarily left-winged biased. Check your facts.

Facts and the truth are what should be reported in newspapers, and, yes, then let the readers think critical. However, that is absolutely not what is reported (and I'm not talking about the opinion pages). Lies, distortions and opinions fill the NYT NEWS pages. It is shameful and unethical, but most with half a brain realize it (Larry being one of the exceptions).

[Francis]

Well said pappy. Hence the rise of Fox news. The NYT and its comrades have beeen very successful compaigners for the left, while its business suffers. That's their choice. It's simply not a newspaper anymore. It's entirely a mouthpiece for the left. That's their nitch. People need to go elsewhere for their news, and they are increasingly doing so.

[SP]

The New York Times readership continues to slide. Regardless of the quality of the article it is from the GOP candidate and should have been published. To reject it and suggest it should reflect more closely Obama's article was wrong and indicates their agreement with one side. Of course the editor is a former Clinton Staffer. No surprise there!

[Sharon]

OK, let's try it this way. The paper wanted McCain to present his views on his policy on Iraq....got it?..Not attack Obama. Or Obama's views, unless to make a point. Ever debated before? I guess not! Both sides present a point of view? The dog fight comes, well on the battle field.....

[Nona]

I wonder how many Republicans work at NY Times?

[vic]

Trial by political correctness.
Obama's position has a whiff of snake oil -- "I don't have any credentials, but trust me, this sounds good so it will work."

[Mike Wilkes]

What I don't understand is why anyone should think that a newspaper funded by its shareholders and in business to make a profit should be under an obligation to print any article if management choose not to.

[Michael]

John McCain won the match. After being rejected by the NY Times, the op-ed piece written by Senator McCain went up on Drudge and enjoyed 1000X more exposure than it would have received had the Times just quietly run the op-ed. Highlighted by this incident, regarding the lofty NY Times, McCain also is increasingly being seen by the American public as a victim of widespread bias favoring Obama by the leftward leaning main stream media. The NY Time's op-ed editor will be wearing this egg on the top of his head for the rest of his career as a journalist and the reputation of the NY Times for fairness has been seriously diminished as a result of this rejection.

[neil]

I don't see the proper role of the NYT as screening the comments of a presidential candidate. If they offer their opinion page to one, they should offer it to another. If it turns out one is a blowhard, and the other is uninformed, let the chips fall where they may. Clearly by rationalizing and parsing their reason for refusing to print the McCain piece, they are playing a political hand. And of course, that is not remotely new with the NYT. They are of course fully entitled to reject the McCain piece, but at the same time they cannot argue that the politics of the left do not control their opinion page, if not I might add, their reporting.

[Paul Gamberchioni]

McCain's article was drafted by GWB, that's why it was rejected. Don't you suckers know that:))?

[Wes]

The NYT was caught in the act of being its disreputable self, and I view this latest incident with no sense of surprise, and real satisfaction.

Its consistent track record of support for any and all left-wing causes, tolerance of scoundrels like Sharpton and Rev. Jackson, and its recent disclosure of intelligence sources all demonstrate its bankruptcy as a journalistic enterprise.

I note also with satisfaction the news that the NYT has seen its circulation and revenues plummet, and that its stock is now rated just above junk-bond status.

Keep up the good work, gents. We may finally be rid of you yet!

[Wes]

The NYT was caught in the act of being its disreputable self, and I view this latest incident with no sense of surprise, and real satisfaction.

Its consistent track record of support for any and all left-wing causes, tolerance of scoundrels like Sharpton and Rev. Jackson, and its recent disclosure of intelligence sources all demonstrate its bankruptcy as a journalistic enterprise.

I note also with satisfaction the news that the NYT has seen its circulation and revenues plummet, and that its stock is now rated just above junk-bond status.

Keep up the good work, gents. We may finally be rid of you yet!

[MK]

Many comments here are really missing the point..

Basically the NYT said they wanted more than a plain partisan rebuttal of Obama's piece.. like including some of McCain's own policies and ideas on the subject.

They gave him the chance to add those and re-submit the article but instead his campaign decided to blow up the issue in a blatant attempt to paint the whole media as "Liberal", when really it is all about readership/money and boring old oft-repeated partisan responses that everyone has already heard does not provide that.

[Esther]

"Regardless of the quality of the article it is from the GOP candidate and should have been published" - this is a wonderful example of how some people have misunderstood the concept of "free speech" to mean "all points of view are valid".

[M]

Why the New York Times WAS right to reject John McCain's article

[Ed]

DF: "But if they simply asked for a piece that matched Obama's because, like Obama's it was actually about his views on Iraq, well then I am right behind them."

David Shipley, in an email to McCain's team: "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/

Should be the end of the story but instead, we have here another non-issue mainstreamed by whiney-assed Republicans.

But it follows the usual pattern. (1) "Outrage" occurs; (2) wingnuts go mad; (3) facts are revealed; (4) wingnuts shown to be idiots.

Every. Single. Time.

Just look at the overflow of stupidity flooding the comments.

[Jonathan Fernando]

I wonder who here has read both articles? Obama's mentions McCain three times, McCain's mention's Obama ten times. Given that each article was quite short, I think that such a difference puts a clear number on the amount of partisan sniping compared to policy contained in each.

[b]

The NY Times has failed as being a fair and impartial presenter of facts and opinions. The forth estate is doomed that is why people will not purchase it, it stock price declines, it has to cut staff and reporters and the masses doubt the validity of it. I have not purchased a copy of the NYT in years and is another reason why I never will.

[Kent Charters]

No, the NY Times does not have to run an article by McCain. I don't expect balance from the NYT. NYT is a business, albeit not a very successful or profitable one that markets primarily to Democratic Party supporters, endorses Democratic Party candidates such as Obama, and NYT doesn't want McCain to win. Why should the NYT provide a platform for McCain? In any case, I can find McCain's article/position on the net in a variety of URLs. In other words, who needs the NYT? If I want to find out what a Democratic party house organ thinks about US foreign policy issues, I can read the NYT or a bunch of other sources.

[Angela]

It doesn't matter if they were right or wrong. The right of free speech also protects the freedom to say nothing at all.

[M. Martin]

At this point in American political discourse the NYT no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt regarding whether its actions are politically or journalistically motivated. While they may have rejected McCain out of journalistic motives, there is no reason to assume this is the case given the overwhelming support the US media is giving Obama. Further, of the two candidates, McCain speaks with much more authority on the issue of Iraq than Obama, as McCain has been one of the driving forces behind current Irag strategy, for good or bad.

[Tyler]

Saying that the NY Times is fair is like saying that Obama is an African American. He is not African nor is the Times impartial. The point is the issues and until they can separate themselves from their personal agendas, we, the country of free speech, have been taken hostage by people hell bent on having their views disseminated to the world as fact. If only citizens would listen to the candidates and not what media outlets project, we may have very different candidates to begin with!

[Sean]

Twenty years ago, the Times op-ed pages were impressive in presenting high quality op-eds on both sides of an issue (the Gulf War being a great example). Nowadays - their coverage is predictably one-eyed or just plain made up! They're no longer an 'authority' on any subject - they're now a 'participant' - and we're all worse off because of it. It's sad to see yet another formerly great institution ruined by collectivist numbskulls.

[Mike]

"Well, political pieces by elected officials or candidates can often be very boring - safe, unrevealing and tediously partisan."

Exactly right. I don't think I have finished a column by either the PM or DC.

[Harry Morrow]

Thank G_d for alternative media so we're no longer slaves to the BBCs and NY Times' and Finkelsteins of this world.

[Ed Sweet]

The tombstone at the top of the front page of the New York Times has always said, All the News that is Fit to Print. That should be changed to All the Liberalism that is Approved for Print.

[Kottaras]

No doubt the NYT is a biased newspaper. It is quickly losing respect. McCain deserves to be heard and the NYT must be fair.

[Kottaras]

The NYT is certainly biased and unfair.

[Alexander]

Shame,Shame,Shame. It is unfortunate that the NYT has sunk this low (by printing Senator Obama's editorial and then refusing to print Senator McCain's editorial). What was once a great newspaper has become cheap tabloid for furthering left-wing political ends.

[Greg Starr]

The New York Times has not been at its best so far this year. It is easy to remember the NYT's manufacturing of a "scandalous affair" between McCain and a Washington lobbyist. And easy to remember the timing of the manufacture---right before an important primary. It seems some NYT journalists are playing power politics and kingmaker. Too bad--- for everyone.

[Angela]

So many conservatives in a flap about fairness and impartiality because the NYT decided not to print what they think it should. And they say Americans don't really get irony!

[geoffthereff]

Danny, I disagree, your reasoning is interesting, but get back to basics. Freedom of the press is not just about journalists printing and being damned for their stories. It also about the right of individuals like a prospective US President, to be seen and heard, warts an' all.

The NYT must re-orientate it's lost it's way right now.

[Angela]

Geoff - I disagree with you here. Freedom of the press (or speech) is not the same thing as the right to be heard. It is just the right to say your piece with being punished, prosecuted or persecuted as a consequence. If nobody listens or even wants to to listen, they too are exercising their hard-won freedom. Having publications held hostage to a system of tit-for-tat exchanges is a far greater threat to the freedom of the press than the NYT telling John McCain to find something interesting to say.

[Angela]

And yes, I meant WITHOUT being punished...........

[Roberta Sambol]

Without going into the depths of the two articles, your headline is grammatically incorrect. The New York Times is ONE newspaper, not multiple, therefore it should read "The New York Times WAS."

[Jimbo]

The New York Times poses as a liberal well edited newspaper. It is not! It is a heavily biased pretence paper, with very non-liberal views on Palestine. That it would reject an article by a presidential candidate is no surprise. Being democratic applies only inspecial cases!

[MBA]

You, sir, have entirely missed the point. McCain's article was expected to run because Americans CAN read and decide on their own. This is another example of the press deciding who is going to be our next president and it won't work. To say the article wasn't written well or went off point is something for a reader to decide. And the Times wonders where all their readers and ad money have gone....

[Memphis Aggie]

I don't mind the NY Times picking sides but I do mind the pretense of objectivity. Rejecting McCain was obviously done out of bias. There are no strict boundaries or rules, they can publish whatever they care to. However when they take sides and then pretend to be above it all, that's offensive and dishonest.

Is the choice of subject matter really so objectionable? Candidates take on their opponents all the time. It's a major part of the campaign and traditionally the underdog (that'd be McCain) is always more direct. Your argument does not have much substance. McCains view of Obama is as newsworthy as is his view of Iraq. The NY Times is just being petty.

[James Murphy]

Whilst I have read McCain's piece I have yet to read Obama's initial article. McCain's article did seem like petty point scoring and didn't in any way outline his policies and whilst Obama's may well have been the same, the fact is that the NYT didn't reject McCain's outright; they asked him to redraft his piece.

Instead of doing so quietly, and this episode consequently never happening, there was a leak and McCain could point to a clear bias in the press. This, for me, shows that McCain's indignation at rejection is far outweighed by his attempt to gain publicity by petty point scoring and to prove that the media have a new love child in Obama and will consequently attempt to neuter his right to freedom of speech. He could have attempted a quick rewrite of the article but instead opted to outline a media agenda against him.

With a massive budget for advertising himself and his policies in the coming election, to attempt to do such a thing seems quite absurd to me as his message can be heard loud and clear whenever he so desires.

[Joe Noory]

Obama was in the senate 143 days before obfuscatingly saying yes to a presidential run. He's the NYT's Frankenstein monster to begin with.
If they want to be predatory partisans, sobeit, just so long as they stop pretending to wear the mask of being a disinvolved, nonpartisan entity. They were getting rather nauseating, disingenuously pretending not to be the shills that they are.

[Ad-Rock]

WOW DANIEL! Sounds like someone has a crush on OBAMA (wink wink). How cute.

[phil hardison]

An Open Letter To Senator McCain:

Dear Mr. McCain,
Apparently you are surprised that the New York Times has thrown you under the bus by recently refusing to print your op-ed pice, but I am not. The reason that the media has had considered you to be it's "darling" in recent years is because you have routinely voted with liberals and against conservatives. Indeed, you have gone out of your way to disparage conservatives seemingly at every opportunity - presumably to win favor with the media elite along with your liberal allies in the Senate. Since there now seems to be a real chance that a far-left social liberal may actually get elected to the presidency, the left-wing media establishment no longer considers you to be such a "useful idiot." I'm afraid they now consider you to be just an idiot. An idiot that is too right-wing, too old, and too mean-spirited to govern. It seems to me that you revel in your so-called maverick status. You must me miffed that the only place you are referred to as a maverick these days is in your own campaign commercials. Webster defines a maverick as "an independent-minded person who refuses to conform to a particular group." Translation: Unprincipled. Or at best you have decided to keep your shifting principles to yourself. Mr. McCain, if you think that conservatives will vote for you simply because you are the lesser of two evils, you are badly mistaken. Save it for your "friends" on the other side of the isle. This conservative is not interested.
Respectfully,

Phil Hardison

[Mandeep]

I find it rather ironic that we have Republicans on here slating the New York Times for its potential partisanship, whilst they sit back and let Fox News run utterly biased pro-Republican fearmongering re[prte.g. suggesting that no American should or would vote for an individual with Senator Obama's middle name. You all deserve the same treatment you dole out to others, I'm afraid; the NYT is being far too generous to Senator McCain.

[Ravi]

Someone mentioned that McCain's words should carry more weight since he has been formulating the Iraq policy for "good or bad". I remember the same being said about the 'gravitas' that Dick Cheney brought to the Iraq debate in 2003. In hindsight, that meant telling bold-faced lies. We need to listen less to the people that have taken America into the ditch. They should be muzzled for 8 long years to help us restore the America we love.

[Jerome, Australia]

So there really are two candidates in the upcoming US election. According to mainstream US media there is only one, Barrack Hussien Obama. I'm looking forward to seing how US citizens like the introduction of gulags and thought police, oh wait, thats what they call Universities now days...