There are a lot of people crying "foul" after revelations of the NYT rejecting an Op-Ed piece from John McCain, one week after publishing one from rival Barack Obama.
Like most I have heard and read, my thoughts were instant.
Let's think about this a second. Can anyone say they are truly surprised by this? This is the same publication that accepted payment for and printed the now famous "General Betray Us" ad. And if that was not enough, they refused to allow an ad for rebuttal at the same rate charged to the MoveOn.Org cult, who was behind the ad that attacked the integrity of the general.
The Times claimed it had given a bulk rate to Move On, for more than one ad. If those wanting a rebuttal ad to be placed for the same rate, they would have to buy the same package. Shrewd business practices, yes. Fair and balanced journalism, no.
So here, we have Obama's essay out in the open and the Times refuses to allow McCain the opportunity to publish his own in the same forum. Likewise, we have another weak excuse from the Times for not allowing an opposing viewpoint to be articulated on its pages. Meanwhile, the Times continues to show their partisan colors and clearly demonstrates one of the major reasons their circulation is declining at a faster rate, than other publications in the industry.
Newspaper bias is nothing new. Traditionally, papers have had a liberal or conservative slant in their editorials and other writings. But those that exercise journalistic integrity have no problems giving those with opposing viewpoints, an opportunity to communicate their disagreements. Whereas once the NYT was one of those publications, they are no longer a member of that club.
5 comments:
How ironic that the only attention the Republican candidate can get this week is when there is a story about the press refusing to print his opinions.
More irony: the NYT recently published an op-ed from a Hamas apologist entitled "What Hamas Wants." That was "News Fit to Print" apparently. Perhaps the Hamas op-ed "mirrored" BHO's opinion, as required by the NYT. Hamas is Obama's middle name, right?
Apparently, you didn't hear about the NYT editorial policy: "Don't confuse me with the facts, just tell me what I want to hear." Yet, they can get away with this because most of their subscribers love the idea of socialist control of news media outlets. The NYT is not unlike Pravda in this regard.
It's simply too good to be true that this guy is married to Naomi Wolf and worked for Clinton. Just image if the roles were reversed, how the mainstream TV sycophants and guys like Olbermann would be spinning it.
Just image if the roles were reversed, how the mainstream TV sycophants and guys like Olbermann would be spinning it.
This is just a total stab in the dark, but I think someone might play the race card in that case. Which is why no one would dare refuse an Obama op-ed.
Hmmmm....Even the WaPo isn't as blatantly biased as the NYT. Close, though.
Post a Comment