The Columbia Journalism Review, not previously known as a Republican stronghold, sees liberal bias in the Times's rejection of an op-ed by John McCain supporting the war, a week after the paper ran an anti-war op-ed by his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama.
CJR contributor Lester Feder wrote of Deputy Editorial Page Editor David Shipley's rejection:
McCain partisans have decried the Times's decision -- and, if you read the two columns side by side, Shipley's justification does seem rather thin....Instead of making a statement about its judgment of McCain's leadership -- a judgment that it could defend on principle -- the Times has only reinforced its reputation on the right as a biased liberal broadsheet.
It is unclear what detailed "plans" sounded new to the Times when it accepted Barack Obama's July 14th submission.
CJR didn't find the explanation from Shipley (a speechwriter for President Clinton in the mid-90s, BTW) very convincing:
But in his email to the McCain campaign, Shipley was specific about what "details" he expected from the Arizona senator:
"[T]he article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also 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."
As Feder correctly pointed out:
The whole point of McCain's rejected op-ed, published today in the New York Post, is that he doesn't think it is wise to offer the kind of Iraq statement that would satisfy the Times. McCain declares 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 Sen. Obama."
He concluded that the Times's "tenuous arguments about newsworthiness" served "only to feed the paper's reputation as a vehicle for thinly veiled liberal bias."
The New York Post on Tuesday ran the McCain op-ed rejected by the Times, and editorialized that the "paper of record" had failed its responsibility to its readership:
...on an issue as central to the presidential race -- and as critical to America's War on Terror -- as this, you'd think "the paper of record" would let each side make its case. Ha! The irony, of course, is that millions of Americans will now see McCain's piece, anyway. And the only party damaged in the process is... the Times. Sounds about right to us.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The Gray Lady's complexion had further faded
July 23, 2008 - 10:14 ET by AmericanEnergistWith the NYT's profit dropping a whopping 82% in the 2nd quarter and the paper in virtual free-fall, the Chief Executive Janet Robinson states that business
was hurt by the "U.S. economic slowdown and secular forces playing out
across the media industry."
It has nothing to do with journalism or Al Gore's internet, would it?
www.ArmchairEnergist...
The good reasons and the real reasons raise their ugly...
July 23, 2008 - 11:19 ET by ThalpyThe good reasons and the real reasons raise their ugly head, AmericanEnergist. Your points are right on. I am sure that Janet Robinson will continue with her delusion about the secular forces, while the root cause of the NYT demise is the NYT.
Can we call her Baghdad
July 23, 2008 - 13:48 ET by MassConservCan we call her Baghdad JRob?
Maintaining the paper's viability while the walls collapse around her?
NY Times
July 23, 2008 - 10:31 ET by GothampcWith making such poor editorial choices, and having to pay for a new building in Manhattan, how is the NY Times staying afloat?
NYT
July 23, 2008 - 10:43 ET by okiehawk44David Shipley would, in any other business, have been terminated immediately for incompetence. No ifs-ands-or-buts!
Having an editor of your op-ed page demonstrate his obvious bias without consequence is shameful at best and another reason folks don't trust and therefore don't buy daily newspapers anymore.
Media needs to realize that trust is hard to build and very easy to lose (Nixon & Clinton?) and it is being lost daily and in big ways.
Stop listening to the others plugged into the echo chamber and look up the definitions of bias & journalism and then decide what you want to be -- a journalist or a publicist.
"This is the crux of my disagreement with Sen. Obama."
July 23, 2008 - 11:47 ET by RobNThat quote says it all: "This is the crux of my disagreement with Sen. Obama."
That the New York Times would demand that McCain capitulate on the very thing he defines as the crux of the issue shows one of two things. Either the New York Times is as biased as everybody says it is, or they just didn't read the editorial they rejected. If any other reasonable conclusion is possible, I haven't heard it yet.
"..the Times has only
July 23, 2008 - 11:54 ET by Chris Norman"..the Times has only reinforced its reputation on the right as a biased liberal broadsheet."
Notice how they can't bring themselves to criticize the rejection directly - only that it will cause criticism from the right. This is reminiscent of when Hillary Clinton would criticize Obama for giving the "Right" ammunition against Democrats. It's never the actual transgression that's criticized - only the appearance it gives.
McNotObama '08
New York Times
July 23, 2008 - 13:32 ET by Redrowan2000The New York times reminds me of another newspaper that carried out similar tactics against its idealogical opponents. What was its name ?
Ahh yes Pravda.
Thats where the Times is today. Thats why its readership and profits are down, aside from it's mishandling of plagiarism due to it's affirmative action policies and its blatant left wing bias . They are beginning to make MSNBC--CNN and Air Ameica look legit. The NYT is sunk and good riddance.
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Red
That was NO Goof...and "thinly veiled liberal bias" it was NOT
July 23, 2008 - 23:50 ET by JayTeeThat was a NYTimes Thickly un-veiled effort to control the Presidential Debate, not expand opinions and give "Equal" time.
They didn't Goof, they followed the Liberal Plan....and it is "Obvious to the Most Casual Observer" that the NYT is supporting the Obama Campaign via the Sins of Omission.
Expect MORE of the Same....more Thinly veiled GOOFS...if you must call it that.
The NYT is no longer the "Paper of Record" .....it's an Anti Democratic organization that is trying to Influence the Election, and eliminate any Debate.
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
You Can Always Spot Them...
July 24, 2008 - 04:48 ET by BondPlainBond... The talking heads willing to sell themselves for money, those that deliberately defend this kind of calculated ethical misbehavior, frequently demonstrated by The Times, using weak and convoluted reasoning as their best argument, are the lowest of the low.
Numerous talking head liberals have been attempting to drill the talking points of outrageous delusion home to the viewing audience with each quarter hour appearance on the cable news shows.
Reasonable people recognized this political and exclusionary maneuver by The Times for what was; completely malicious, deliberate, and unfair.
I hope the talking heads are compensated well for their morals and conscience, at least their asking price, when they receive their propaganda mission pay.