Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
The New York Times has reportedly rejected an editorial written by Republican presidential candidate John McCain less than a week after publishing an essay by Democratic candidate Barack Obama.
The US website, Drudge Report, said the paper had refused to publish Mr McCain's piece, which was a rebuttal to Mr Obama's article title 'My Plan for Iraq'.
According to the site, the paper's opinion page editor David Shipley wrote to McCain's staff: "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece."
"I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written."
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain - US Election - smh.com.au
LMAO...sounds like the same crap that "some" of the left wing try in here. Your either pro-Obama, or your out! So much for a concept known as "Freedom of Speech".
Have a good one!:s4:
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
The New York Times has reportedly rejected an editorial written by Republican presidential candidate John McCain less than a week after publishing an essay by Democratic candidate Barack Obama.
The US website, Drudge Report, said the paper had refused to publish Mr McCain's piece, which was a rebuttal to Mr Obama's article title 'My Plan for Iraq'.
According to the site, the paper's opinion page editor David Shipley wrote to McCain's staff: "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece."
"I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written."
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain - US Election - smh.com.au
LMAO...sounds like the same crap that "some" of the left wing try in here. Your either pro-Obama, or your out! So much for a concept known as "Freedom of Speech".
Have a good one!:s4:
What would you expect from an ex-Clinton speech writer?
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
It's pretty common to ask candidates for something new in their op-ed pieces before a publisher will run them and distribute them for free to millions of readers. All editors exercise that kind of control over op-ed pieces. If there is nothing new, then they don't want to waste the page on it. It doesn't infringe McCain's freedom of speech to not run his article for free in the paper. He can publish his ideas on his own, or he can take out an ad, or he can provide an article interesting enough to run. That was probably the biggest problem with it if McCain wrote it --- it was probably boring...
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
Yea, come on guys, while a little unfair, it isn't like they kicked the guy in the nuts.
All they did was ask for new information, perhaps so they can publish somthing interesting?
Please get off your crosses and soapboxes so you can see whats really going on. All they asked for was new information, so all McCain has to do to get published is provide that. It isn't like they are asking him to jump through a ring of fire while farting the star spangled banner. Give them newsworthy info and they'll publish it. Simple, right?
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
Since "news sources" are suppose to give all sides of a story with an unbiased position, I take it that both of you don't regard the New York Times as a credible news site? This seems rather ironic considering on how everyone from the left has been "Bush bashing" on such things as censorship, etc....
Have a good one!:s4:
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
well, assuming I am allowed to actually reply to this thread, there is a difference between reporting both sides, and reporting both sides with newsworthy information. If McCain can't write any new information, why in the world would any news organization want to print it? News is about new information. Heck, the word new makes up 3/4 of the word news.
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
Since "news sources" are suppose to give all sides of a story with an unbiased position, I take it that both of you don't regard the New York Times as a credible news site? This seems rather ironic considering on how everyone from the left has been "Bush bashing" on such things as censorship, etc....
Have a good one!:s4:
Ha ha! The editorial staff sending back your op-ed peice for a rewrite is not censorship. Censorship is when you actively prevent a person's message from being published, not when you decline to pay to publish it for them. McCain has thousands of ways to get his opinion heard --- no one has censored him.
Also, the op-ed page is not a news story. In a news story, the reporter should seek out all the information and opinions and present them without bias. But that doesn't mean the editor is required to run all op-ed peices reflecting every single point of view. If I send in a letter to the editor, and they don't publish it, it does not mean I have been censored.
I'm sure the Times will run a piece by McCain if he writes a newsworthy one. The Times endorsed McCain for the Republican nomination, and they have run 7 op-ed pieces by him in the past, so I think they are treating him fair enough. I think McCain is making a big deal about this because he wants to be seen as being the victim of unfair media coverage.
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
Quote:
Originally Posted by LegalizeTheGreen
well, assuming I am allowed to actually reply to this thread, there is a difference between reporting both sides, and reporting both sides with newsworthy information. If McCain can't write any new information, why in the world would any news organization want to print it? News is about new information. Heck, the word new makes up 3/4 of the word news.
The same thing can be said about the liberals and the Fairness Doctrine. Which has been attempted to be revived by democrats for some time now to FORCE their influence across radio stations. They have been trying to push this for some time now.
This doctrine would force Radio communication companies to give equal air time to liberal talk radio shows as they do to conservative talk radio shows.
With that said.. why should these radio stations be FORCED to air something they don't find worthy. In a world news media that is very liberal why is it that conservatism is allowed to be turned down as "un news worthy" but yet the few areas where conservative news source exists they are trying to force them to air Liberal programs.
For information regarding this do a google search for "democrats fairness doctrine".
So tell me.. what do you believe in, do you believe in free speech or do you believe in equal representation in the media. Because the way the Democrats are going it seems that they are wanting to take BOTH away from us.
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
The same thing can be said about the liberals and the Fairness Doctrine. Which has been attempted to be revived by democrats for some time now to FORCE their influence across radio stations. They have been trying to push this for some time now.
This doctrine would force Radio communication companies to give equal air time to liberal talk radio shows as they do to conservative talk radio shows.
With that said.. why should these radio stations be FORCED to air something they don't find worthy. In a world news media that is very liberal why is it that conservatism is allowed to be turned down as "un news worthy" but yet the few areas where conservative news source exists they are trying to force them to air Liberal programs.
For information regarding this do a google search for "democrats fairness doctrine".
So tell me.. what do you believe in, do you believe in free speech or do you believe in equal representation in the media. Because the way the Democrats are going it seems that they are wanting to take BOTH away from us.
I personally believe in free speech. That's why I think it's perfectly fine for the Times or any paper to control what goes into its op-ed page.
I don't know about any new changes to how the fairness doctrine is being applied to conservative radio stations. The one difference between broadcast radio stations and broadcast TV stations versus newspapers, cable TV and internet is that the broadcast media use the publicly-owned broadcast spectrum. Because they are licensing public "property" they are supposed to operate in the "public interest" in order to maintain their license. So different standards of fariness have always applied to broadcast media as opposed to cable, internet or printed media.
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonrider
I personally believe in free speech. That's why I think it's perfectly fine for the Times or any paper to control what goes into its op-ed page.
I don't know about any new changes to how the fairness doctrine is being applied to conservative radio stations. The one difference between broadcast radio stations and broadcast TV stations versus newspapers, cable TV and internet is that the broadcast media use the publicly-owned broadcast spectrum. Because they are licensing public "property" they are supposed to operate in the "public interest" in order to maintain their license. So different standards of fariness have always applied to broadcast media as opposed to cable, internet or printed media.
I am a believer in free speech myself and have no problem with TIME turning down the McCain article. I just find it Ironic that people who slam McCain saying that fair is fair not knowing that Nancy Pelosi is trying to force broadcasting stations to the fairness doctrine... which you have to admit is ANYTHING but fair.
When people are telling you that you HAVE to do something.... well is that really Fair at all?
While I would like to see some more unbiased news being reported on... for now I'm content. I would rather retain our freedom of speech then to enforce a false sense of fairness through this doctrine.
Really this my reply was in response to Legalizethegreens post. I admit that anyone complaining about this is whining; but in comparison the the wool the Dems are trying to pull over our eyes.. it pales.
News media should be able to report on whatever they want.
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
Yes, freedom of speech is more important than trying to impose "fairness," which is always open to interpretation. The "Fairness Doctrine" may have had its place when the publicly-own broadcast spectrum was a the main channel for mass-media. If the government is going to say who gets and keeps a broadcast license, then the government is responsible for some level of fairness. But now it is almost becoming a moot point because all the other non-licensed media channels such as cable, internet, satelite, etc. are overtaking licensed broadcast.
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
I think that McCains new ad sums it up pretty well:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/new-john-mccain-ads-show_n_114277.html[/YOUTUBE]
Do ya feel that thrill running up your leg yet?:wtf:
Have a good one!:s4:
Times takes Obama article but rejects McCain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
I think that McCains new ad sums it up pretty well:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfogMFL7UJo&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/new-john-mccain-ads-show_n_114277.html[/YOUTUBE]
Do ya feel that thrill running up your leg yet?:wtf:
Have a good one!:s4:
Ha ha! Funny! Everyone feels the LOVE!
I was struck by the depth of Tucker Carlson's love --- I didn't think he was capable of love. He may have now learned how to give love, but I'm not sure if he will receive any in return --- that thrill running up his leg will probably only happen if he strokes his own thigh, which I am sure he does whenever the camera zooms in for a head shot.
