The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

It was not a letter, it was an Op-Ed piece. Big difference.

 

Having done both, I don't really see a big difference. All an Op-Ed is a longer letter by someone a little more important or relivant to the subject at hand. It is still an opinionated article submitted by someone who doesn't work for the paper.

[bmags]

That's sort of irrelevant to the fact that Obama ran a piece, on the same subject, and McCain's was rejected. Unless McCain's letter clearly violated some rules of the paper (like it was full of expletives, or revealed state secrets, or whatever), then this is B.S. journalism. The editorial board should be ashamed.

 

There's a big difference between rejected and revising. Rejected would be refusing to publish anything from McCain. Revising is what most everyone does. And when you are going to get a big spread in the Sunday edition of the NY TIMES, yeah, you might have a few drafts.

[southsider2k5]

There's a big difference between rejected and revising. Rejected would be refusing to publish anything from McCain. Revising is what most everyone does. And when you are going to get a big spread in the Sunday edition of the NY TIMES, yeah, you might have a few drafts.

 

Which isn't any better to me. If they are going to publish editorials, the writer of them, not the editor, needs to decide what his message and relative content will be. Forcing changes in that, changes the authors message. If they wanted to have something specific to print, they should have just written it themselves and put their own name on it.

[bmags]

Which isn't any better to me. If they are going to publish editorials, the writer of them, not the editor, needs to decide what his message and relative content will be. Forcing changes in that, changes the authors message. If they wanted to have something specific to print, they should have just written it themselves and put their own name on it.

 

Like I said, they wanted money. And they wanted to scoop. If McCain would've said, this is my copy, if you want I'll take it to the WPost and I'm sure they'll gladly take it, NY Times probably would've backed down. But, like I said they wanted "how I'll win Iraq", instead they got "talking points by John McCain". Especially with all that was happening that weekend I'm not surprised they wanted a better editorial. It wasn't much more than Obama and a bunch of glittering generalities.

[Balta1701]

Which isn't any better to me. If they are going to publish editorials, the writer of them, not the editor, needs to decide what his message and relative content will be. Forcing changes in that, changes the authors message. If they wanted to have something specific to print, they should have just written it themselves and put their own name on it.

But every op-ed writer faces the same hurdles. Every piece you see on the op-ed page of a major newspaper has gone through that process of being submitted to an editor and probably coming back with comments about length, content, etc. Are you arguing that the editors simply shouldn't exist and that the paper itself should have no control over the material it prints once it decides to hand over column inches to someone?

[southsider2k5]

But every op-ed writer faces the same hurdles. Every piece you see on the op-ed page of a major newspaper has gone through that process of being submitted to an editor and probably coming back with comments about length, content, etc. Are you arguing that the editors simply shouldn't exist and that the paper itself should have no control over the material it prints once it decides to hand over column inches to someone?

 

Length is not what the NYT was trying to change. They were trying to get McCain to change what he wrote. There is a big difference there. I don't think you would be happy if all of the sudden I started making it so that I had to approve your posts, based on the changes I suggested, and let other people's fly by. Who knows what the true reasons are, but it doesn't look good when you start forcing changes in people's writing. In some parts of the country they call that censorship.

[bmags]

Length is not what the NYT was trying to change. They were trying to get McCain to change what he wrote. There is a big difference there. I don't think you would be happy if all of the sudden I started making it so that I had to approve your posts, based on the changes I suggested, and let other people's fly by. Who knows what the true reasons are, but it doesn't look good when you start forcing changes in people's writing. In some parts of the country they call that censorship.

 

Give me a break. A privately owned newspaper asking for a different draft for an editorial that could have huge impact on how much papers they sell is not akin to censorship in any way, shape, or fashion. And, balta said length, CONTENT. Yet you focused solely on length for some reason.

 

And comparing a message board to a newspaper is just completely out there. It's like comparing cooking shake n bake at home to working as a cook in a Chef's restaurant.

[southsider2k5]

Give me a break. A privately owned newspaper asking for a different draft for an editorial that could have huge impact on how much papers they sell is not akin to censorship in any way, shape, or fashion. And, balta said length, CONTENT. Yet you focused solely on length for some reason.

 

And comparing a message board to a newspaper is just completely out there. It's like comparing cooking shake n bake at home to working as a cook in a Chef's restaurant.

 

You totally missed it, but I focused on content as well when I mentioned them trying to force changes based on what was suggested. Like I said, if they want something specific to print, go ahead and put your own name on it so that it is what it is... the NYTs opinion, or at least their interpretation of McCain's opinion.

 

And accidently you hit on the biggest point of all here, money. The NYT knows that they will sell more newspapers by creating controversy and catering to their audience. Rejecting the content of people that they don't agree with is probably the best publicity that they could create.

[lostfan]

You totally missed it, but I focused on content as well when I mentioned them trying to force changes based on what was suggested. Like I said, if they want something specific to print, go ahead and put your own name on it so that it is what it is... the NYTs opinion, or at least their interpretation of McCain's opinion.

 

And accidently you hit on the biggest point of all here, money. The NYT knows that they will sell more newspapers by creating controversy and catering to their audience. Rejecting the content of people that they don't agree with is probably the best publicity that they could create.

The draft of McCain's op-ed was pretty controversial IMO. I can summarize it as follows:

 

"Obama sucks and he is dumb. He doesn't know s*** about foreign policy, specifically Iraq."

[bmags]

Right, because the NY Times leaked that they rejected McCain to seem really cool, I mean, they're so big they don't even NEED presidential candidates editorials. Hop on the cool kid's subscription bus!

 

I didn't miss it. You saying that wouldn't it suck for you to edit balta's post are nothing remotely similar to the situation. At a newspaper there are editors and there are reporters and there are columnists and then theres the sports/arts/what have you. When you write a story, you take it to your editor, she/he will tell you what they think you are missing, where a better framing might be. AFter it's approved, it gets edited for copy and fact checked.

 

In editorials, it's a little stranger. There are some regular contributors, but the also take on outside editorials from different papers on the wire and what have you. Then they'll also have guest editorials, sometimes from political players. Recently I had to copy a piece from a local official. The thing was really almost completely copied from their web site. We went through 4 drafts. It was annoying. He didn't go public about how unfair we were being.

 

In my last, repeated statement I will say: This wasn't about bias. This was about selling papers. McCain has been pushing these talking points every where. They wanted an exclusive. McCain apparently doesn't want to clarify their positions, because it's much easier to say, No Surrender. Victory. Stay the course. Surge Surge. Obama (socialist) Inexperienced. Ba, what? Um, No, don't ask those questions. You do not ask those questions to John McCain!

[southsider2k5]

Except for all of your hypotheticals, none of that was the case with McCain. They didn't say it was too long or too short. They didn't say that it was plagerized or not spell checked. They said that they wanted the content of the article changed to be like Obama's. They are perfectly within their rights to do so, but in doing so they also open themselves up to people who view this as further proof their biases.

 

And I agree with you that it was about money. They are sucking up to their subscriber base. They know that the people reading the NYT in general want more Obama and less McCain. And they have a specific vision of McCain that fits their vision. They wanted exactly that from McCain's editorial.

 

As for my example being good or bad, that is 100% irrelevant, and a pointless sidetrack. The main issue here is that the New York Times is trying to have the best of both worlds. They want the attention of a John McCain editorial, except they want him to do it exactly how they want him to do it. Its not much of an editorial if you are telling someone what to write.

[NorthSideSox72]

The draft of McCain's op-ed was pretty controversial IMO. I can summarize it as follows:

 

"Obama sucks and he is dumb. He doesn't know s*** about foreign policy, specifically Iraq."

All the more reason to publish it, as long as it doesn't break any rules or laws. Let McCain state his peace. If he hangs himself with his own words, then so be it. If he looks good, so be it.

 

[lostfan]

All the more reason to publish it, as long as it doesn't break any rules or laws. Let McCain state his peace. If he hangs himself with his own words, then so be it. If he looks good, so be it.

I'm in the "they should've just published it" crowd.

 

At the same time I'm against any further dumbing down of this already pathetically dumbed-down election news cycle. That's a fine line to walk.

[southsider2k5]

All the more reason to publish it, as long as it doesn't break any rules or laws. Let McCain state his peace. If he hangs himself with his own words, then so be it. If he looks good, so be it.

 

That's what I don't get. If the piece was that bad, publish it, and let people tear it apart. There is no need to try to change someone's opinion to try to fit it to what you think it should be.

[jackie hayes]

That's what I don't get. If the piece was that bad, publish it, and let people tear it apart. There is no need to try to change someone's opinion to try to fit it to what you think it should be.

bmags's point is that the NYT did not say, Change your opinion. They said, Give us a new opinion. They gave no guidelines about what that opinion should be.

[southsider2k5]

bmags's point is that the NYT did not say, Change your opinion. They said, Give us a new opinion. They gave no guidelines about what that opinion should be.

 

A new opinion requires a change of opinion. If there is no change, it isn't new. Like I said, they can do whatever they want, but then don't cry about it when you get called on it.

[NorthSideSox72]

bmags's point is that the NYT did not say, Change your opinion. They said, Give us a new opinion. They gave no guidelines about what that opinion should be.

That's pretty lame. "We didn't say change your opinion to a specific thing, we just said, change your opinion".

 

[jackie hayes]

A new opinion requires a change of opinion. If there is no change, it isn't new. Like I said, they can do whatever they want, but then don't cry about it when you get called on it.

No, a new opinion could be simply a clarification. That was actually the example the NYT editor gave of what they were looking for. It does not require a change of opinion, nor does it have to be inconsistent with any stated positions.

[jackie hayes]

That's pretty lame. "We didn't say change your opinion to a specific thing, we just said, change your opinion".

That's a terrible summary of what I said. There does not, again, have to be any change of opinion. In can simply be an opinion that hasn't yet been featured by the campaign.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's a terrible summary of what I said. There does not, again, have to be any change of opinion. In can simply be an opinion that hasn't yet been featured by the campaign.

And still, they are rejecting his current opinion. Given that they allowed Obama to express his, I'd suggest, the only way to look anything like a fair and impartial news publication, is to let McCain have the same allowance. Anything less is a clear indictment of their bias, IMO.

 

By the way, when I say "they" or "their", I don't mean the entire NYT and all its journalists. In fact, I think the actual newsies at NYT are possibly the best in the world. I am speaking specifically about whomever is making this decision.

 

[bmags]

ay, they didn't say, Make your opinions more like Obama's, they wanted the content to (repeated ad nauseum, they wanted the definitive McCain Foreign Policy piece) be like Obama's (because Obama's in every way was his policy for the middle east. Had little to do with McCain besides clarifying their two positions).

 

In other words, they didn't want to know why Obama was wrong, they wanted to know what McCain tried to do. So we are criticising the times for wanting a higher level of discourse.

 

In Obama's piece, McCain was mentioned 4 times, in the intro and conclusion paragraphs, in McCain's piece, Obama or the pronoun "He"-which refers to Obama in the context, was used 11 times - in every paragraph except one. So they wanted a new draft. Boo hoo.

[southsider2k5]

ay, they didn't say, Make your opinions more like Obama's, they wanted the content to (repeated ad nauseum, they wanted the definitive McCain Foreign Policy piece) be like Obama's (because Obama's in every way was his policy for the middle east. Had little to do with McCain besides clarifying their two positions).

 

In other words, they didn't want to know why Obama was wrong, they wanted to know what McCain tried to do. So we are criticising the times for wanting a higher level of discourse.

 

In Obama's piece, McCain was mentioned 4 times, in the intro and conclusion paragraphs, in McCain's piece, Obama or the pronoun "He"-which refers to Obama in the context, was used 11 times - in every paragraph except one. So they wanted a new draft. Boo hoo.

 

Like I said, they can do whatever they want, but I don't want to hear anyone crying for the NYT either. The McCain camp is just as entitled to their opinions as the NYT is, then again, maybe McCain should have just rejected the NYT's opinion until they gave it to him the correct format.

[jackie hayes]

And still, they are rejecting his current opinion. Given that they allowed Obama to express his, I'd suggest, the only way to look anything like a fair and impartial news publication, is to let McCain have the same allowance. Anything less is a clear indictment of their bias, IMO.

 

By the way, when I say "they" or "their", I don't mean the entire NYT and all its journalists. In fact, I think the actual newsies at NYT are possibly the best in the world. I am speaking specifically about whomever is making this decision.

Again, they are not saying, Your opinion is wrong. They are saying, everybody already knows that you have that opinion.

 

If a newspaper simply has this position, "Every candidate piece must contain some information that is not widely known", that is not a partial policy. It would be partial to enforce it for some pieces but not for others, however.

[kapkomet]

Again, they are not saying, Your opinion is wrong. They are saying, everybody already knows that you have that opinion.

 

If a newspaper simply has this position, "Every candidate piece must contain some information that is not widely known", that is not a partial policy. It would be partial to enforce it for some pieces but not for others, however.

And everyone knew Obama's widely known stance as well, but that was free and clear to run...

 

[jackie hayes]

And everyone knew Obama's widely known stance as well, but that was free and clear to run...

Well, the NYT disagrees with you. They believe the speech (and the editorial which preceded it) contained new info.

 

Personally, I don't disagree with you. I didn't find anything in the editorial that I didn't expect to hear.

 

But that's a different argument than the one bmags has been making. The only thing I'm saying is that he has a valid point. A newspaper should be allowed to demand the same standards of any candidate editorial. If you want to argue how well it implemented those standards, that's fine, and I don't think I'd say much against you. The only reason I said anything here is that I think most of the replies to bmags were misrepresenting one of his main points.

 

Btw, I think bmags would disagree with me about how new the editorial was, so take this as jmo.