{"id":16311,"date":"2008-07-22T08:12:04","date_gmt":"2008-07-22T12:12:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com\/archives\/16276.html"},"modified":"2008-07-22T08:12:04","modified_gmt":"2008-07-22T12:12:04","slug":"nyt-to-mccain-write-a-better-op-ed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/nyt-to-mccain-write-a-better-op-ed\/","title":{"rendered":"NYT to McCain: write a better op-ed"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Last Monday (July 14), the New York Times ran an <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/07\/14\/opinion\/14obama.html?ref=opinion\">op-ed from Barack Obama<\/a> on his vision for U.S. policy towards Iraq. It was a very strong column, which as one might expect, described the kind of strategy Obama would pursue as president. It was far more policy driven than political &#8212; it referenced John McCain only three times in a 900-word piece &#8212; and explained why it&#8217;s critically important to have a &#8220;useful debate,&#8221; instead of another round of &#8220;false charges about flip-flops and surrender.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The McCain campaign thought it&#8217;d be great if the NYT offered the presumptive Republican nominee a similar opportunity, and submitted <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2008\/POLITICS\/07\/21\/mccain.op.ed\/index.html\">its own 900-word op-ed piece<\/a>. There was just one problem that the Times editors couldn&#8217;t help but notice: the column was <a href=\"http:\/\/politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com\/2008\/07\/21\/new-york-times-rejects-mccain-editorial\/\">dreadful<\/a>.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The New York Times has rejected an op-ed piece written by John McCain defending his Iraq war policy in response to a piece by Barack Obama published in the paper last week.<\/p>\n<p>In an e-mail to the McCain campaign, Opinion Page Editor David Shipley said he could not accept the piece as written, but would be &#8220;pleased, though, to look at another draft.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Let me suggest an approach,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama&#8217;s piece.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>For reasons that escape me, Republicans <a href=\"http:\/\/www.memeorandum.com\/080722\/p6#a080722p6\">have decided<\/a> that this is an outrageous example of media bias. I haven&#8217;t the foggiest idea what they&#8217;re talking about.<br \/>\n<!--more--><br \/>\nThe conservative take on this, in a nutshell, is that the NYT gave Obama a platform, so it should give McCain an equal opportunity. The Times publishes op-ed pieces from all kinds of people from around the world; why should McCain be excluded?<\/p>\n<p>But that&#8217;s not at all what happened here. The Times was fully prepared to give McCain a platform; the editors simply wanted a substantive, policy-driven piece. Indeed, instead of a flat rejection, the Times told the McCain campaign, in a rather friendly way, that it would be &#8220;pleased, though, to look at another draft.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, the paper issued a statement yesterday afternoon:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It is standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission. We look forward to publishing Senator McCain&#8217;s views in our paper just as we have in the past. We have published at least seven Op-Ed pieces by Senator McCain since 1996. The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the presidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>That&#8217;s not a rejection; it&#8217;s an invitation.<\/p>\n<p>Go ahead and <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2008\/POLITICS\/07\/21\/mccain.op.ed\/index.html\">read McCain&#8217;s submitted piece<\/a>. It has 12 paragraphs &#8212; 11 of which attack Obama directly. Obama&#8217;s piece focused on Obama&#8217;s vision for a sensible U.S. policy towards Iraq. McCain&#8217;s submission was a hit-job, focused exclusively on attacking Obama. While Obama&#8217;s op-ed mentioned McCain three times, McCain&#8217;s op-ed mentioned Obama 10 times by name, and 17 times through pronouns.<\/p>\n<p>The sticking point seems to be over the Times&#8217; request that McCain not only talk about &#8220;victory&#8221; in Iraq, but actually take a moment to explain what that means. The campaign doesn&#8217;t want to do that &#8212; and by every indication, it <i>can&#8217;t<\/i> do that. Even being asked to define &#8220;success&#8221; is, apparently, considered a personal affront.<\/p>\n<p>Obama&#8217;s op-ed talked about his Iraq policy. And McCain&#8217;s op-ed talked about Obama&#8217;s Iraq policy. That may pass for &#8220;balance&#8221; on Fox News, but some outlets are looking for a little more.<\/p>\n<p>The Times wanted to run a thoughtful, substantive piece from McCain on the war. In fact, by all indications, the Times <i>still<\/i> wants to run a thoughtful, substantive piece from McCain on the war.<\/p>\n<p>That the McCain campaign can&#8217;t bring itself to write one, and is whining about even being asked, speaks volumes about John McCain&#8217;s clarity and judgment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last Monday (July 14), the New York Times ran an op-ed from Barack Obama on his vision for U.S. policy towards Iraq. It was a very strong column, which as one might expect, described the kind of strategy Obama would pursue as president. It was far more policy driven than political &#8212; it referenced John [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[617],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16311","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16311","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16311"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16311\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stevebenen.com\/thecarpetbaggerreport\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}