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

rcecale · rcecale's Garage

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!

Randy

cairns · 07-21-2008, 01:11 PM

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.

m21sniper · 07-21-2008, 02:35 PM

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

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-21-2008, 02:53 PM

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?

m21sniper · 07-21-2008, 02:56 PM

Even our dumbasses are more electable than your geniuses.

Mule · 07-21-2008, 02:58 PM

I don't know how anybody could get that impression!

Red Baron · 07-21-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

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

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

trap · 07-21-2008, 03:38 PM

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.

andrew15 · 07-21-2008, 03:38 PM

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!

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-21-2008, 03:50 PM

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.

lendaddy · 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

As an OpEd piece, it reads more like McCain's opinion of Obama.

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

BeyGon · 07-21-2008, 04:00 PM

"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.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-21-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lendaddy

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

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

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.

Tidybuoy · 07-21-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

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

Why is the glass always empty with liberals?

Joeaksa · 07-21-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

Eat it up boys, losing never tasted so great.

Ahmm, care for another bet my friend?

Shaun @ Tru6 · 04:49 PM

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.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-21-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tidybuoy

Why is the glass always empty with liberals?

Who are you calling a liberal, son?

DanielDudley · 07-21-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tidybuoy

Why is the glass always empty with liberals?

Hey, I thought this was a Republican bellyacking thread.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

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.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by cairns

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.

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.