Nahhhhh, There's No Media Bias, Is There...?
 

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.


Bunch of hypocritical *******s! :rolleyes:

Randy

It really pisses me off too. I'm canceling the Washington Post when my subscription runs out. They wonder why their circulation is declining; they're consistently told stop the bias but the same people are there spewing the same ***** day after day. They can't write a sports article without getting in a Bush slam. Really disgusting.

OTOH I now get the WSJ- no bias in the news reporting that I can see (they actually lean left according unbiased studies), a conservative editorial page and interesting articles from all walks. Not to mention the best business coverage in the world.

I agree about the WSJ, definitely the best newspaper i've ever read.

is that really the McCain essay? He seems to be a real fan of Obama. Sure writes about him a lot, and it's not even well written.

What is the Right's fascination with electing stupid people for the Presidency?

Even our dumbasses are more electable than your geniuses.

I don't know how anybody could get that impression!
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gm080717.jpghttp://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...071808dAPR.jpg

Because sometimes you're forced to fight stupid with stupid.

The column contains a significant inaccuracy and repeats information the NYT has already published and attributed to McCain. But you still expect them to run it? They have offered to run a corrected, re-written version of it. In fact, they encouraged it.

Wasn't it rejected because McCain presented a piece that ripped into Obama's previous editorial without presenting any of McCain's own ideas? Didn't they say - Hey, we'll publish your opinion - please write us one with your ideas instead of just regurgitating sound bites?

Funny stuff really - people get mad at Obama for not offering up solutions, and then are upset with the press when McCain tries the same thing.

The more I look at it, based on previous arguments about substance, you should be voting Obama - he's the one offering ideas now, with McCain only offering sound bites to deflect any debate ;)

Between questionable lobby links, a druggie wife, infidelity, and a wife that helped sell Bud to the Europeans, I'm not sure what you like about him! :)

As an OpEd piece, it reads more like McCain's opinion of Obama. I'm not sure he understood the assignment. Some things don't change I guess. Man, what a rebel! A real maverick!

Eat it up boys, losing never tasted so great.:D

psssst, the "op" in "op-ed" stands for opinion or opposite the editorial page. Wouldn't want you to look silly:D

"Between questionable lobby links, a druggie wife, infidelity, and a wife that helped sell Bud to the Europeans, I'm not sure what you like about him! "

the best reason to vote for McCain is HE ISN'T OBAMA, he isn't married to Michelle, and he has a better class of friends.
Selling Bud to the Europeans is good, they deserve it.

oh Joel, as the first key is hit, it's generally too late to worry about that.:D

The "assignment" was to write about your opinion on winning in Iraq. Instead, McCain gave his opinion on Obama. Geez, the first 5 minutes of McCain's stump speech has more info than his essay.

You know, I did this in college, freshman writing. The first assignment was so dumb, I doubled the page count and wrote about how dumb the assignment was, using the text, Machiavelli, to back up my assertions. Got a B+ and a stern lecture, which seems to be a lot better than McCain got from his teacher.:D

Why is the glass always empty with liberals?

Ahmm, care for another bet my friend?

Joe, I'm more broke now than I was then. Not a good combo.

but you have to admit, even if McCain wins, you still lose. Either way, there'll be a liberal in the White House next year.:D:D:D

Who are you calling a liberal, son?

Hey, I thought this was a Republican bellyacking thread.

Oldie but goodie.


The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.

The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country.

USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand the Washington Post. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie chart format.

The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could spare the time, and if they didn't have to leave LA to do it.

The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country and they did a far superior job of it, thank you very much.

The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country, and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.

The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country, as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from ANY country or galaxy as long as they are Democrats.

The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country but need the baseball scores.

The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

The Wash. Post is getting out of control. The Op-Ed staff was always liberal, but they usually have some excellent investigative reporters. The recent police checkpoints in the Trinidad neighborhood in DC got a lot of coverage, but then the violence seemed to die down. As soon as they had three more shootings last weekend, the Post had to inject a comment about the Heller decision, claiming gun control would keep the city safe. Just unreal. Glad I can read the Post for free online. I'd not pay for it again.

Here is the piece Obama wrote. I am sure with your sides usual diligence, you have already read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

As you can see it is just Obamas plan to end the Iraq war.
All the times is asking is for McCains plan to end the war.
Simple

Obamas plan hardly mentions grandpa and McCains rebutal is all about Obama.
Obamas name is in almost every paragraph.

It sounds like he wants free press, to respond to something that has nothing to do with him.
It's John McCain, who would be interested anyways?

Stay the course, Victory, Al Queda, 100 years, Terror. Everybody knows his position already, it's the "what would George do?" plan

McCain says a timetable is bad but then says this "I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013."

Jesus, he wants to continue this war until at least 2013? What an idiot.
They are doing him a favor for not running his piece.

Obama is an idiot, all he cares about is meeting the 16 weeks that he promised his lefty backers he would do.. Truth be known he'd rather we were losing the war so he could cut the 16 weeks in half..
NYTimes insisted that McCain re-write his plan with a timetable - in other words adapt Obama's turn tale and run pussy attitude.. Obama should be running for president of France, but his wife is too fat and ugly..

Uh, 16 months, not weeks.

MY bad...... I stand corrected ( something Obama would never say)

Is this what you are talking about? I didn't see anything about a timetable.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

McCain has no idea how to respond to that, because he doesn't know. All he knows is that some troops might be home by 2013.

That's great. What a plan.

I agree. Socialist is much more accurate.

So 16 months does sound reasonable then, eh?

No the guy set a schedule to please his left wing supporters with no input from the generals in the field.. That's the point,, now he's over there for a photo shoot and will come back and say nothings changed..
Although he went from the surge isn't working last week to , it is working this week, but he still is against it.. The guy has no clue....

Correct me if I'm wrong here...but doesn't op-ed mean a newspaper page devoted to signed articles by commentators, etc., of varying viewpoints?

In this case, the NY Times says 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.

If they don't like McCain's article - then don't print it. But to dictate how they want it written?? What's up with that.

Why not print it as is it and let the American people decide if McCain is just being negative.

Are you incapable of stating your opinion without derogatory comments? It really is unbecoming and demonstrates your ignorance.

"Correct me if I'm wrong here...but doesn't op-ed mean a newspaper page devoted to signed articles by commentators, etc., of varying viewpoints?

In this case, the NY Times says 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.

If they don't like McCain's article - then don't print it. But to dictate how they want it written?? What's up with that.

Why not print it as is it and let the American people decide if McCain is just being negative."

So true. But we forget that liberals aren't happy with just telling people what they should think; they insist on telling them what they can write too. Varying viewpoints are not welcome in the offices of today's mainstream media. This is, after all, the same paper that ran the General Betrayus ad.

He is a grandpa, how is that derogatory?

Senator McCain has seven children and four grandchildren, and currently lives in Phoenix, Arizona with his wife Cindy.

Unsure what marriage they are from. Pretty sure the first, but he likes to keep that family secret.

I bet your parents are keeping you a secret.