Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “In This Corner, the NYT: Even Worse Than We Thought!”

« Will Elite Media Ask Obama Whether Their Coverage of Him is Fair? | Main | Bush Still the Straight-Talker... But Only Behind Closed Doors »

July 22, 2008

In This Corner, the NYT: Even Worse Than We Thought!

Hatched by Dafydd

The story about the New York Times refusing to run John McCain's op-ed responding to Obama's propaganda piece is "old news"... which wouldn't stop us ordinarily; we love to take on old news -- even ancient history -- if we can offer a unique, lizardly slant on things. But in this case, it had seemed kind of cut and dried, with everything obvious we could say having already been said by, e.g., Power Line and Patterico's Pontiff Vacation (Wolf Howling is on the same track as we).

But here is a rare piece of breaking news on Big Lizards... as in, breaking the facade of elite journalistic objectivity wide open. In a stunningly candid attempt to "defend" his position, the editor of the Times' editorial pages, David Shipley, has admitted that he spiked the McCain op-ed precisely because he doesn't agree with it... despite the fact that "op-ed" -- which literally means "opposite the editorial pages," in terms of its physical placement on the other side of the printed sheet -- has historically also indicated an opinion piece that differs from that of the editors... even at the august NYT:

In an e-mail to the campaign on Friday, David Shipley, an op-ed editor at the newspaper, said he could not accept the piece in its current form, but would look at another version. In the e-mail, released by McCain's campaign, Shipley wrote that McCain's article would "have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory -- with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."

In other words, sure, we'll publish your opinion piece... when you adopt Barack H. Obama's position on a set timetable for withdrawal, no matter the facts on the ground.

While no legal rule requires a newspaper to be fair -- obviously, or the elite print media wouldn't even exist -- the Times and other top "news"-papers has certainly claimed for decades that they do not discriminate against those candidates they oppose, that they are unbiased in their willingness to allow both sides of contentious issues to be aired, that they are not simply partisan propaganda mills for liberal Democrats. But this brazen new fracas puts paid to that false preening. Shipley has as much as said that he won't publish McCain's response unless McCain relents and "admits" that Obama is right and McCain is wrong on the critical foreign-policy issue of this campaign.

As I've said before, the new motto of the New York Times should be, "all the news we see fit to print!"

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, July 22, 2008, at the time of 8:29 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3141

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Geoman

Okay, I know this is a crazy idea. But how's about the NYT publish what McCain's writes and let the discerning reader determine whether it is an appropriate response to Obama and provides a clear path to victory? I'm pretty sure my delicate sensibilities can handle it.

I can hear them chanting at NYT headquarters..."Obama...one of us...one of us..."

The above hissed in response by: Geoman at July 22, 2008 9:35 AM

The following hissed in response by: Karmi

By refusing to accept McCain’s op-ed, it probably got more coverage and readers than if the NYT’s had allowed it. I probably would not have even known about it, but have now read it several times, and have seen the story about the NYT’s refusal of it all over the place.

Perhaps the NYT’s readership would grow, if they just published a blank paper…

The above hissed in response by: Karmi at July 22, 2008 10:16 AM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

Half the democrats responses in the NYT's blog said if the Times had just published Macs opinion it would not have gotten the exposure it's getting now-----and they're p-oed about it. Others on the left also claimed that the Times had no right to not let two presidental candidates "get it on" in a debate on the editorial pages of the ever fading "paper of record", which makes Shipley look like a total idiot.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin at July 22, 2008 8:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: scrapiron

I agree 100% with B Hussein O's article.
J McCain (R)

This would be front page center.

Doesn't the FCC have some say over phony news outlets?

The above hissed in response by: scrapiron at July 22, 2008 10:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: scrapiron

I agree 100% with B Hussein O's article.
J McCain (R)

This would be front page center.

Doesn't the FCC have some say over phony news outlets?

The above hissed in response by: scrapiron at July 22, 2008 10:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

The NYT shareholders should take the company back.

The above hissed in response by: hunter at July 23, 2008 4:44 AM

The following hissed in response by: LarryD

The NYT Co. stock is set up in two classes, precisely so that the family keeps control.

See The Rapid Decline of the New York Times.

The above hissed in response by: LarryD at July 23, 2008 8:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: Karmi

New York Times 2Q profit drops 82 percent

How many more profit drops of 82% can they afford?!

The above hissed in response by: Karmi at July 23, 2008 9:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: GW

Thanks for the link, Dafydd. As to family control of the NYT, let's see how long that lasts when Pinch can no longer dole out dividends to the family. I have two celebrations planned. The first will be when the stock price hits single digits, which should happen this year. The big celebration will come when they show up on the penny stocks - or get sold to Ruport Murdoch.

The above hissed in response by: GW at July 23, 2008 1:36 PM