Right Wing Falsely Claims NYT Rejection Of McCain’s Op-Ed Was Unprecedented
Right Wing Falsely Claims NYT Rejection Of McCain’s Op-Ed Was Unprecedented
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 Dick 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.” Watch a compilation of Bolton, Morris, and Rove here:
But 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.
Read the Times’s full explanation of its rejection here.
Transcript:
COLMES: All right. In terms of “The New York Times,” the “New York Times” said, look, we work with our authors, our op-ed authors. We want t o get a revised draft.
BOLTON: Let me say, Alan.COLMES: We’re not going to publish it. It was — we would be happy to publish it. You got to work with us to revise it the way we want it like any editor of any newspaper.
BOLTON: Alan, I’ve published op-eds in “The New York Times.” I may never publish another op-ed in “The New York Times” after this. But I’m telling you, if they had come back to me with that kind of comment, I’d would have said stick it in your ear. I’m going to go publish it somewhere else.
COLMES: Maybe you could have found a softer way to phrase that.
BOLTON: For them I probably wouldn’t have. For them to say that to - - the Republican presidential nominee is offensive. [...]
COLMES: They asked him to revise it. They wouldn’t revise it. That’s the way it works on an op-ed piece.
MORRIS: You don’t tell a candidate for president of the United States what to write.
COLMES: They’re looking for a specific kind of statements.
MORRIS: You don’t tell a president to the United States candidate what to write.
COLMES: I point out editors do.
MORRIS: No, it’s not.
COLMES: Yes, it is.
MORRIS: When a president writes — I doubt they changed a comment in Obama’s piece.
COLMES: McCain’s president now? [...]
ROVE: I thought this — I thought the decision by The New York Times was arrogant, condescending and stupid. It was arrogant because it said, We’re going to dictate to you what you put in your op-ed. It was condescending in its tone that said, You have to mirror what Senator Obama said. And it was stupid because it gives people more reason to believe that they simply can’t trust The New York Times to be fair and even-handed.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, in such an important time in a democracy as a presidential election, we have two candidates running, you would think that they’d want to mirror exact opportunity –
ROVE: Exactly.
VAN SUSTEREN: — and not try to tell someone what to write, you know, just to be careful of sort of the conduits of information and let the voters decide.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
68 Responses to “Right Wing Falsely Claims NYT Rejection Of McCain’s Op-Ed Was Unprecedented”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
BOLTON: Alan, I’ve published op-eds in “The New York Times.” I may never publish another op-ed in “The New York Times” after this.
_______
WHOOHOO!
Well done, NYT! One down, a few hundred neocons to go!
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 amI guess the right wingers want a return to the fairness doctrine now. Is that not is essence what they are saying? That they want "equal time". Wow. They are even bigger hypocrites than I thought.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 amI think the NYT did the old man a favor because he is a dolt that flip flops like a fish out of water.They know he is full of lies that he just keeps repeating over and flipping over all of the time.This all the talking heads are going to talk about for days and I`m sure they are going to use some constitutional mumbo jumbo of their own to try and justify old man Johnny`s op-ed piece of $hit.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:39 amBolton also said that he “may never publish another op-ed in ‘The New York Times’ after this.”
_____________________________________________________
Oh, if only he will make good on that threat...
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 amGrampy McSame got a D- on his report - that's a FAIL!
Go back and try again, Gramps.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 amI support the NYT in this matter. As I understand it, the Times made some very reasonable requests such as asking him to define what he means by "winning in Iraq". I know that this is not important to the kool-aid drinkers at FoxSnooze or morons like Morris, Rove and Bolton or to LIVs (low-information voters). On the other hand, it is extremely important to the rest of us.
McNumbNuts doesn't get a free pass on this. He has made a big deal of his questionable military experience and fitness to "win wars" as CIC. He should then be required to share his definition of "winning".
If only we had required GDumbya to be as explicit about his bogus claims, we could have avoided all the messes he has gotten us into.
We can count on Limpballs, Insanity and the rest of the rant-jockeys to make a big deal out of this for days and days. It is nothing more than the latest red herring that they are trotting out in a vain attempt to salvage the disaster that is the McNumbNuts candidacy.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 am"i don't need equal time,
i am equal time!"
- rush limbaugh.
*
do i misquote?
#
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 amAn interesting move by the NYT, which I have always felt was a NeoCon-friendly paper, due to its readership demographics.
But I support their move, not because I don't like McCain, but because they really were trying to get a balanced view of both men's positions, not a campaign rhetoric response with no real 'meat' in it.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 amConservative Pundit Dick Morris: “You don’t tell a president to the United States candidate what to write.”
- - Did Morris say this in Iraq and there was a translation error? Or does he always speak in dyslexia-ese?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 amHow unfair that one have to actually say something of import to be given Op Ed space rather than just being worshipped! What's wrong with those people at NYT? Next they'll start demanding facts and even, perish the thought, accuracy!
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 amWhat we are seeing here is most likely what we will be seeing during the debates; Obama with defined and well articulated positions and McDepends with his 'my friends' and meandering about but never stating specific positions of his own, just criticizing the fact that Obama HAS defensible positions.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 ama reasoned argument properly cited with diction and conciseness?? How dare we expect something like this from the person who is to lead the Free World??
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 amQuote: Bolton also said that he “may never publish another op-ed in ‘The New York Times’ after this.”
Let's all hope the New York Times takes him up on that!
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:49 amMcCain "wrote" a sub-par op-ed?
Imagine that...
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 amMcCains's hit piece on Obama was not an editorial - it was a hit piece.
Of course it offered no solutions.
All it did was critisize Obama. No solutions or plans.
McSame is just another Shrub but a bit worse. Just as ingorant, just as warlike and just as fascist.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 amNYT would have done itself a big favor if it had used simpler language in its explanation, viz:
John McCain's was expected to write a rebuttal of Obama's policy positions.
Instead it was just critique of personality, not of policies.
As such it was not a rebuttal but a series of complaints.
All we asked was that McCain provide a comparable op-ed so readers could properly compare the candidates directly on common issue.
McCain refused.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 am"arrogant, condescending and stupid.” Rove just described himself in his quote. He must have looked in the mirror while answering.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:56 amI wonder if David Brooks is going to chime in on this in his column?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 amLet me get this straight. The NYT did not refuse an op-ed, they just asked him to fix it. This angers Bolton? He threatens never to write an op-ed again? Be still, my heart.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:58 amRepublicans are always afraid of a fair fight.
They won't even play the game unless it is rigged for them to win.
They are cowards.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 am“You don’t tell a president to the United States candidate what to write.”
No. But you do tell them what you'll publish.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 amROVE: ...arrogant, condescending and stupid.
Yes, Karl, I'm sure Congress would characterize your lack of appearance before committee with similar words.
Perhaps the NYT just wanted McBlabber to eliminate a few dozen "my friends".
PEACE
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 amI think it's wonderful that the NYT editorial dept. demands that there be at least a little substance in a piece otherwise filled with feces.
Now, if they could apply this standard across the board...
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 amupside99:
An interesting move by the NYT, which I have always felt was a NeoCon-friendly paper, due to its readership demographics.
It's long been my impression that the NYT Op-Eds are reliably rational and progressive but that actual editing of the rest of the paper is conservative.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:14 amSo the NYT is a biased leftist piece of garbage against which rightie John Bolt-on will retaliate by refusing to supply more rightie columns for publication. Winger "logic" strikes again.
I guess it's just piling on to note that the NYT lets Billy Kristol spew his neocon ramblings with no editing whatsoever. Perhaps McNutzi is just jealous.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:15 am"Bolton may never publish another op-ed in the NY Times
Can we depend on that?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 amThese right-wing blowhards need to be asked if it was arrogant, offensive, etc. when it happened to Clinton. All their comments just continue to prove how hypocritical they are-- Clinton rejected? - no problem. McCain rejected? - arrogance, stupidity, etc. The real arrogance comes from those who make the hypocritical comments, & who feel by yelling & criticizing, they can force the NYT to do it their way.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 amaaawwww, geeez, Daryll, go crawl back into the sewer, you POS.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 amDaryll Says:
The NYT rejecting an article with conservative viewpoint is not suprising. Bill O’Reilly has pointed out, numerous times, that the NYT is a far left newspaper that supports socialist views. Personally, I think the Washington Times is a relevant newspaper.
Oh Goody! Daryll has just admitted that he finds billo and the Moonie rag in DC as viable information sources.
Explains a lot of why he is the way he is.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 amTreating the NYT as if they are an arbiter of fairness or credibility is the real issue. This is the rag that is helping "legitimize" and mainstream PNAC b*stards like Kristol.
Funny how many people defend the NYT now that they snub a big conservative...forgetting their complicity in manipulating valid and urgent news stories. Christ, how gullible are we?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:22 amSo the Times won't publish wingnut propaganda and in response Bolton decides not to submit anything to the Times in future?
Stupid on steroids.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 amNot only does Obama speak better than McCain, he writes better than him also.
The McCain letter was supposedly a response to the Obama letter. The request to "mirror" the Obama letter is not an attempt to make McCain change his position, but merely to make it possible to compare the two positions side by side.
If McCain can't figure out how to do that, maybe he should go back to Checheslovakia.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 amSometimes the financial mumbo jumbo is as laughable as the political mumbo jumbo. Subprime loans have higher interest rates than regular loans and Superprime loans have lower interest rates. Those in the best position to repay a loan get lower interest rates and those who have to pay the highest rates would have a better chance of survival without usurious interest rates.
I hope the previous words have made 1 or 2 republiscum's heads explode. :)
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:28 amI submitted an Op Ed to the NYT on the Civil War. They refused it.
Who do I get to complain for me ? In all fairness though, I lifted 3/4 of it from the internet.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 amIt is my fondest hope that ALL media pisses Bolton off so that we never have to hear his psychotic rantings again.
However, even though technically NYT is being consistent, and even though Grampy McSame is a doddering fool, the NYT should have printed it. When one of the major candidates has something to say you should err on the side of printing it regardless of how goofy it may be.
And watching the Right Wing "whine" is amusing. =)
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 am28. dasm said "These right-wing blowhards need to be asked if it was arrogant, offensive, etc. when it happened to Clinton..."
What a novel use of "Clinton did it first!"
Cheers ;-)
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:36 amI've never seen a bigger bunch of chickenhawk, whining pussies in my life! Waaaah!!! McCain didn't get his op-ed published. Well, maybe if he offered something of substance instead of absolutely nothing he'd get his op-ed published! And then the neocon smear-and-fear warmongers come out of the woodwork like roaches in a dirty restaurant. Its not the NYT fault the neocons picked a senile dumbass as their candidate with nothing positive to offer our country and the rest of the world.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 amDaryll Says:
Personally, I think the Washington Times is a relevant newspaper.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Of course you do.
The Reverend Moon thanks you for your support.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 amThis reads like a classic "If... then" construction, and as such, it is seriously lacking in intellectual rigor and validity.
Try again.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 amDaryll Says:
I think the Washington Times is a relevant newspaper.
Daryll, are you a Moonie?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 amMoonie rhymes with loonie.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:42 amThe GOP is the party of little brats throwing tantrums.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:43 amDaryll, given that the NYT regularly publishes (and frequently has to apologize for) articles with conservative viewpoints from the likes of Bill Kristol and David Brooks, it must follow that the reason "NYT rejecting an article with conservative viewpoint" is not surprising is because so few of them are written to the linguistic standards of decent society.
Because, surely, if the NYT rejected articles because of a conservative viewpoint, Kristol and Brooks would never have been hired. Am I right?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 amBolton also said that he “may never publish another op-ed in ‘The New York Times’ after this.” Watch a compilation of Bolton, Morris, and Rove here:
Promises, promises. This is one promise I would like to see kept.
I read the "editorial" by McCain (more likely by one of his staffers). It should have been submitted as a paid political ad. All it contained was hits on Obama. It didn't contain anything that was new nor did it contain McCain's views on Iraq and what we should do about it, as did Obama's piece.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 amBut make no mistake, Daryll -- good to see you back at work.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 amYou know, even if the NYT was far left (it's not) as Daryll says, my reply is, so what. We have the WP tilted to the right, the LA times tilted to the right, the WT (totally right), so why can't we have at least one major newspaper in this country tilted to the left?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
You know, even if the NYT was far left (it’s not) as Daryll says, my reply is, so what. We have the WP tilted to the right, the LA times tilted to the right, the WT (totally right), so why can’t we have at least one major newspaper in this country tilted to the left?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 am
_______
Because the people who buy ad space profit more from the policies of the right.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:52 amBolton also said that he “may never publish another op-ed in ‘The New York Times’ after this.”
Oh Happy Daaayyyy!!
Works for me!!
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 amHow many people likely to vote for McCain would read a dry op-ed in the NYT?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 amNow how many people who lean McCain or are conservative uncommitted would read a viral hot rejected smear of Obama with McCains name on it? Any questions?
As a public service, here's McCain's submitted Op-Ed. I've added some spaces for easier reading in this blog format.
McCain's Rejected Op-Ed
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% 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.
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."
Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.”
Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.
The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale.
In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.
To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.
Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover.
The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. 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.
But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons.
This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.
Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say.
During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”
The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.
I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But 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. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pmLet McBush start his own blog.....uh, oh right. Let McBush get one of his sycophantic lackey nerds to put his op-ed on a blog.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pmMcCain lie:
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.”
Wrong. They said "has made significant progress on," not "met."
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pmMcCain lie:
No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves.
The departing brigades have overlaping deployment with incoming brigades, meaning we haven't reached pre-surge levels yet.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pmsome idiot said, "Save a tree, ban the NYT."
SAVE THE THREAD, BAN THE TROLL.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pmThe situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.
A non-sequitor. A "great victory" ( a term MCain constantly uses in campaign speeches, when describing Iraq) cannot be considered great if it is also termed as fragile.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pmPromises, promises.
I wouldn't put too much stock in "Bonkers" Bolton's promises. Ask yourself: when was the last time he was caught telling the truth??
BTW, McSame's editorial was rejected simply because he never defined what he meant by the term "victory in Iraq."
He uses the term constantly but never tells anyone what he means by it or how he plans to achieve it. Just like the Chimp.
Apparently, for both Chimpy and McSame, "victory in Iraq" only means keeping our soldiers there indefinitely. Just like in Vietnam.
Come to think of it, this is exactly the same "reasoning" that lead to our great "victory" in Vietnam.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:29 pmOooh, that big bad librul media is being unfair to poor widdle Wepubwicans!!!
Call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHmbulance!!!
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pmWhy don't the Republicans ever mention the cash payments to tribal leaders to keep them from fighting? Don't you think that played a part in the success of the "Surge"?
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 pmLiberal newspaper? Since when? We are talking about the newspaper that printed everything Judith Miller wrote. Word for word regarding the war. Only to find out that what she wrote was given to her only from one source. The Whitehouse. She fact checked nothing for all of that time. And neither did the NY Times.
Then a couple of years ago, she admits she was wrong, she was taken for a ride. Big deal. The NY Times was a cheer leader for this war and for Bush. Like all the main stream media they pushed for this war. They did not do their job for years. Now because for the OCCASIONAL truth, they are called liberal.
Give me a break!! This newspaper like most of the corporate news entities are lazy, inaccurate and a pathetic excuse for journalists. This is why the so called free objective American reporting is now 44th in the world as of last year. The number one free, objective press is in the Netherlands.
The media in all forms suck. I get my news outside the US. To find out what goes on in America, I go outside America.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:48 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Why don’t the Republicans ever mention the cash payments to tribal leaders to keep them from fighting? Don’t you think that played a part in the success of the “Surge”?
For the same reason they never talk about Reagan's selling weapons to terrorists. It's "Real-politic" sausage: republicans don't want to know how it's done.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Why don’t the Republicans ever mention the cash payments to tribal leaders to keep them from fighting? Don’t you think that played a part in the success of the “Surge”?
Great point Ralph. This probably has just as much to do with the reduction in violence as The Surge(tm) did. We need to make this a talking point.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 pmWow!
Instead of "Clinton did it too!" The rebuttal now is, "the Times did it to Clinton, too!"
Carpe scrotum
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:03 pmThe GOP sure loves to whine about the librul media
Consider what every Democrat is up against:
Print and broadcast media ownership dedicated to the GOP
A TV "news" network run by a former Nixon dirty trickster dedicated to the GOP and getting the GOP into power.
5 major talk radio ranters - Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage and Ingraham who are completely dedicated to getting GOP candidates elected by smearing their Democratic opponents
Large newspapers completely dedicated to the GOP - the WSJ, The Washington Times, the Chicago Tribune and others
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pmSo much for fairness
***APPLAUSE*** Wow! My point exactly! This bears repeating!
62. curious Says:
Liberal newspaper? Since when? We are talking about the newspaper that printed everything Judith Miller wrote. Word for word regarding the war. Only to find out that what she wrote was given to her only from one source. The Whitehouse. She fact checked nothing for all of that time. And neither did the NY Times.
Then a couple of years ago, she admits she was wrong, she was taken for a ride. Big deal. The NY Times was a cheer leader for this war and for Bush. Like all the main stream media they pushed for this war. They did not do their job for years. Now because for the OCCASIONAL truth, they are called liberal.
Give me a break!! This newspaper like most of the corporate news entities are lazy, inaccurate and a pathetic excuse for journalists. This is why the so called free objective American reporting is now 44th in the world as of last year. The number one free, objective press is in the Netherlands.
The media in all forms suck. I get my news outside the US. To find out what goes on in America, I go outside America.
Hear, hear!
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:33 pmBolton also said that he “may never publish another op-ed in ‘The New York Times’ after this.”
Boo-hoo-hoo. And somehow the world will keep on turning....
ROFLMAO.....
Cheers,
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 pmIt is time, once again, to send our emails demanding better moderation of this site. Every single thread is tainted by troll dung.
See you folks after the purge, or when our trolls get put down. For nappy time.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:49 pmHaven't the Neo Cons hurt America enough?
http://www.light-to-dark.com/aspen_trees_in_the_fall.html
They're falling, and the NYT doesn't want to go down with them.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 pmThis rejection, in the face of classical journalism, was conducted by a supposedly unbiased news-front, clearly taking a side in a presidential election. What the writer failed to mention is that they ACCEPTED Nicolaie Carpathia's... umm... Hussein' nope that's not it... Oh yeah Barry Obama's op-ed. The NYT has shown us what it thinks is included in all the news that's fit to print. Let's keep this community organizer turned marxist away from the oval office.
July 24th, 2008 at 4:45 pm