The New York Times published a story about a fundraiser that John McCain cancelled. They published the following pushback from the campaign:
“These were obviously incredibly offensive remarks that the campaign was unaware of at the time it was scheduled,” said Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the McCain campaign. “It’s positive that he did apologize at the time, but the comments are nonetheless offensive.”
However, when The Hill and the Washington Post published the story, they published pushback from the RNC that included information about one of Barack Obama's fundraisers, Jodie Evans:
“While Obama and Democrats launch attacks on Republicans, their silence concerning fundraisers like [Code Pink co-founder] Jodie Evans and Jim Johnson is deafening,” said RNC spokesman Alex Conant. “Obama’s hypocritical attacks undermine everything his campaign is supposed to be about.”
Note that Evans advocated working with Saddam Hussein as human shields in 2002 and 2003, thereby deliberately undermining US foreign policy. Williams Clayton has apologized, while Evans never has.
Why did the NYT feel that this was an appropriate story to (1) publish in the paper, but (2) not use the same response as other papers that pointed out that Obama had even more questionable links?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Answers
June 15, 2008 - 09:52 ET by expatriotThe answers to your questions are easily supplied.
1) The story focused on the McCain campaign and spun the incident to put the hypocrite label on it (the McCain campaign).
2) Why should the paper that is campaigning strong for Obama point out the double standard that it is guilty of in a very obvious way?
I do not like to answer a question with a question but I feel that it works in this incident. The nyt will never admit the bias that it shows daily and will spin like a top to divert attention away from itself and the pet projects it takes on. ie the Obama campaign.
A question for you? Have you seen them try to spin it so that Barry is really an Irishman and secretly comes from Massachusetts? You know, Barry O'bama whose family originally came from County Cork?
Save the Trees
June 15, 2008 - 09:55 ET by allanfThose days when network news correspondents breathlessly purused the NY Times to see what the days action line would be are almost gone. Pinch Sulzburger has managed to taint an almost untaintable brand. About 75,000 trees are sacrificed each Sunday to produce the Sunday print endition of the New York Times. That says nothing about the loss of birds nests and possibly endangered species. In the interest of editorial consistency shouldn't the New York Times stop printing, to prevent global warming and preserve life?
This is a false comparison
June 15, 2008 - 11:17 ET by j. frank wilsonIn the first case we have Sen. McCain's campaign planning a fundraiser at someone's house without first vetting him. Another dumb move from a poorly organized organization.
In the second we have actions or statements from people who have given money to Sen. Obama.
These are two very different situations, despite the McCain Campaign's attempt to spin them into one (which this poster fel for). Remember what St. Ronnie said? "They endorsed me - I didn't endorse them."
NYT hasn't got a clue
June 15, 2008 - 21:25 ET by wdhorningThe NYT editorial staff does not have a clue. Pick the wrong candidate and endorse him and twist the news so voters will pick Obama and we will reap what they sow. The NYT does not have clue that endorsing a loser, if elected, will become a loss for the country. That is how clueless the NYT editorial staff is.
Yep..it's a false comparison alright!
June 16, 2008 - 10:57 ET by DaieYes, it is a false comparison. John McCain takes support and money from someone who said something ignorant and Obama takes money and support from someone from Code Pink who is a traitor to this country. (Sorry, can't think of anything else befitting to call her). Yep...I can see how that's a false comparison. Roll eyes!