User Panel
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:40:23 AM EDT
Nope. No media bias here. Never heard of it.
|
||
|
edit: Beat me to it!
Now, If the Libs get their way and get "balanced" time on radio, the Conservatives should demand equal time EVERYWHERE ELSE. |
|
Now that Drudge has posted the rebuttal, it now will be seen by more people than the NY Time op-ed would have.
The NY Times is completely irrelevant. It's the Daily KOS of the printed word. |
|
We shouldn't "rebut" Obama, we should "mirror" him instead...
Oh, this is going to be an amazingly fun election cycle. |
|
The point about mirroring the original piece is a valid one. The first piece was of a certain style and format. The second piece is more of a letter-to-the-editor in that its style is simply a critique of the first piece. The second piece doesn't present the author's own viewpoint and perspective in a clear and concise way; it simply attacks the original piece point by point. I can see how how an editor referrred to the need for mirroring in style, as the second piece wasn't the right style/format for an oped. The second piece could have just been run as a letter-to-the-editor though.
|
|
Let me say this clearly - ahem
The McCain piece was rejected because it was not a column detailing McCain's plan for Iraq. It was a response to Obama's column that detailed his plan on Iraq. ETA - beat to it by Masha. |
|
Was that criteria set forth before they accepted the Obama piece ,or is it just a convenient excuse for not accepting the McCain piece. Give me a break. |
|
|
Let me say this clearly... SO THE FUCK WHAT!? Obama wrote what he wanted, McCain RESPONDED to that. That's the very purpose of editorial pages - to RESPOND to what is written in the newspaper. NYTimes never put any preconditions on what Obama wrote. So to be FAIR, no preconditions should be put on what McCain wrote. Get it? |
|
|
Was Obama's piece a critisism of McCains or Bushs? Please post it so we can find criticisms... |
|
|
You ain't kiddin'. They're not even making an ATTEMPT to appear unbiased. |
|
|
I think by this point we all know that the media can barely talk because Obama's nuts are in their collective mouths....
As such, this sort of thing shouldn't surprise us. |
|
Win-Win for McCain. Exposes the media's bias, particularly at the New York Times. Also gets way more exposure for the article on Drudge. Drudge has about 1,000x more readers than the Times.
|
|
And I find it both ironic and disgusting that this asshole can't seem to make a good point without going and ruining it by sucking up to the very people he is trying to defeat. |
|
|
Sure it was a criticism. Just as much as McCains. www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Calling each other out by name, and criticizing each other. THat's called campaigning. The NYT just is caught up in unicorns and "the change we can change for the change we hold dear." |
||
|
|
|
|
No - it really SHOULD surprise us. This is America, not the Soviet Union. The NYTimes is free to write and print anything they want - but with that freedom comes responsibility. If they would simply say, "Hey, we aren't looking to report the news, we just want to report our OPINION of CERTAIN events that supports our political viewpoint", then at least they'd have an aire of honesty. But they don't. They TRY to call themselves "objective journalists", when in fact they are political parrots who hate America and do everything they can to lie, cheat and destroy American society. Who published the story spilling secret information about how the US intelligence was tracking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? In WWII there was the saying, "Loose Lips Sink Ships". Today, the New York Times believes "Secrets spilled, troops killed, headlines filled." Who published the LIE about McCain's "affair" with NO credible sources? Who published the overblown story of the one-day event at Abu-Ghraib (that was already being dealt with by US Military Justice) in above-the-fold page one stories every single day for WEEKS on end - JUST to advance John Kerry's political campaign? Who completely IGNORES the stunning improvements in Iraq since the start of the surge last year as if it it's not newsworthy? New York Times. Not just opinionated, but downright seditious traitors |
|
|
I like Rush's comment on the NYT. We should charge them a surtax because of their massive carbon footprint. All that newspaper, the delivery trucks, etc.
|
|
10 years ago it wouldn't have been an issue, because no one would have known about it.
|
|
Big fuck-up on McCain's part.
How difficult is it to write (or have written by his aides) a piece detailing his plan for Iraq? Years of vague, open-ended "victory" rhetoric hasn't made the current president very popular, there is no reason to think McCain would profit from making the same mistake. |
|
The difference between Obama's and McCain's editorial is perfectly clear - one proposes a plan of action, the other does not.
|
||||
|
So we have to play by the Left's rules now? It's not bad enough we have THEIR favorite Republican running for our side? |
|
|
Yeahhhhh......
His long term strategy of opposition to McCain and Bush's policies as laid out in his critiques of their positions is clearly superior to any refutation of those policy points and we certainly could arrive at no conclusion based on such from McCain. |
||||||
|
FAIL. "A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013." |
|||||
|
This man obviously has no earthly clue what "Strategic Presence" means. I'm sure if we had left South Korea, Europe, or Japan, that our "broader security challenges" would have worked themselves out so much better than they did. Oh, and I can sum up each candidates strategy on Iraq in one word: McCain: WIN. Obama: QUIT. |
|
|
As usual, the American media are doing their utmost to convince me a totally free, unregulated press is actually NOT such a great idea. It's not like the media don't already censor the truth where necessary to meet their agenda. Might as well be a pro-American one for once.
|
|
There's a whopping big difference between saying what you're going to do and saying what you expect to happen. |
||||||
|
I occasionally have some sympathy for your viewpoints, but you're completely full of crap here. Read Grunteled's response a couple times until you understand why. |
|
|
Pinch Sulzburger has been a colossal fuckup at the NYT. He has single handedly destroyed the reputation and the relevence of that newspaper. A lady who used to host a radio show in chicago called the NYT the "Liberal Death Star"
|
|
Yeah - and HOW will Obama "end this war"??? Be specific. Retreat, surrender, give up, run away.... pull troops out no matter what. THAT is his "plan"!?? |
|||||||
|
The fact that Obama's piece was pure shit notwithstanding. "I'm just gunna tell em to pack up and head back to Ma's house." It was a joke, pure and simple. There was no substance, no bread, nothing of any reason. But it was bullshit with at least a definitive statement - I'll bring them home in 16 months. The entirety of McCain's submitted column was, "I disagree with Barrack Obama." Well, neato. |
||
|
It's no secret that newspapers are failing. Ad revenues are significantly down, staffing is being cut, lengths of editorials are being cut.
In a few years, there will likely be few (if any) left. Especially when the liberal whacktards who unabashedly promote leftist agendas in direct conflict with true journalistic principles - will succeed in obtaining an anointed socialist master who will outlaw the use of paper pulp for publishing in an effort to further support the bogus global warming agenda. I will be waiting and laughing away while I let go my illegal, unlicensed cows out of the barn without their methane collection and containment tanks. |
|
Bias?
By the NYT? I'm shocked.. I tell you... absolutely shocked. <- note shocked face. |
|
Lessee.... McCain wants to win the war, not merely 'end' it a la Vietnam (and per the Obama "Plan"). McCain doesn't want be tied down by a specific timetable, but set withdrawal based on concrete progress in establishing Iraq as a sovereign nation. Sounds like a plan to me.... BTW, there is no need to use humungous print to try to make a point. You'll just get greeted by the ban hammer for being rude. If Obama wants to do some useful work, perhaps he can try to extricate the US from Kosovo. |
|
|
Again sir, I ask you: Did the Gray Lady publish a set of criteria before it would accept candidate submissions? If not, this is simply an exercise in ex post facto "spot the difference and claim that's the reason" backfill justification. It is perfectly plain, to anyone reading the NYT, what the candidates' "plans" are -- McCain will stay in Iraq until there is victory by some unspecified metric, and Obama will force a withdrawal from Iraq as soon as some, different, unspecified metric permits him the political cover to do so. McCain wants to win and Obama wants to leave. They're now arguing their positions. The McCain piece is brutal in that it calls Obama to the carpet for writing an editorial that was, in essence, a fraud. Obama wanted to leave Iraq without even trying the surge, now he wants to say the surge is the reason we can leave Iraq. Get it? Heads he wins tails he loses, as long as it includes withdrawal from Iraq. McCain called him out on the fact that getting out is all that seems to matter to O-face, even if its getting out other than as victors. |
|||||||
|
I don't even like McCain, but to say that his editorial was rejected because it was "vague" is laughable! Like Obama has been specific about ANYTHING in his campaign. McCain's editorial should have been printed, period. |
||
|
The NYT was a liberal bastion long before Sulzberger was even born. Consider Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize winning piece about how wonderful it was to live in the Soviet Union in the 1030s. (millions of Ukranians died from deliberate starvation) The NYT still brags about his prize for "objectivity." AFAIK, the NYT is relevant only as a threat to subvert the Constitution for the sake of promoting Communism. |
|
|
* according to what WE say is "news." ~ NYT |
|
|
So Obama will employ the Monty Python gambit: "Run Away!!" |
|
|
The New York Times is a company which is free to do what it likes. If it solicits written details of the two candidates' Iraq policies , there is nothing wrong with only printing the response that actually details an Iraq policy. Some of the people in here don't understand what "mirrors" means, because they never learned about parallel structure when they took English in high school. What the Times clearly wants is for McCain to write a piece detailing his Iraq policy, and they are not only within their rights but also right to deny him space in their newspaper for other purposes. |
||
|
I don't know if the Times sent a criteria sheet to the McCain campaign. But I do know that when I was the opinion editor of a COLLEGE paper I wouldn't let my columnists turn in something like that. It wasn't an opinion piece, it was a letter to the editor. It presented nothing except the fact that John McCain disagrees with Barrack Obama on Iraq, and I don't need 25 inches of print space to tell me that. If Obama wrote that the day of his inauguration he would order every swinging Tom, Richard and Frank to run at a double time toward the Kuwaiti border then it would be marked as one of the stupidest things in the annals of the modern world, but at least it would be seen as a plan. Conversely, if John McCain wrote that the day of his inauguration he would order every swinging Tom, Richard and Frank to run at a double time toward the Iranian border then it would be marked as one of the stupidest things in the annals of the modern world, but at least it would be seen as a plan. You don't get column space in the paper of record just to say "nuh-uh." Which is what McCain's column was in its entirety. Yes, Obama's column was 99% nuh-uh, I guess that 1% put him over the edge. |
|
|
Has anyone suggested that they should be forced by military arms to print the piece? No? Then what is your point? |
|||
|
Say it ain't so... the leftist media no longer loves their outspoken "maverick" Senator from Arizona?!?!
All of a sudden he is just another war mongering Republican who needs to be beaten at all costs?!?!?! Will wonders never cease? |
|
You can see from the quote above my post that it was in reference to nonsense about the "left's rules." This isn't a matter of the "left's rules." |
||||
|
No, big fuck up on the NYT's part...and yours. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.