July 21, 2008
The New York Times Biased?
Gee, whodathunkit.
Lots of blog posts out there over the New York Times' refusal to publish an editorial written by Republican Presidential nominee John McCain in response to an editiorial written by Barrack Obama and published by the Grey Lady.
From Drudge:
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.The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.
'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.'
Of course, those of us that follow all Cuba related news and information have been well aware that the New York Times is ethically challenged - recall their editorial board and Carlos Eire - and that their editorial policy is not to simply "inform" readers, but through their "reporting", to ensure that public opinion parallels their own. All of this, obviously, not just to sell papers and make money, but to set policy through the officials - in this case Barrack Obama - their publication helps get elected.
What I want to know is, who the hell elected the the New York Times, its editorial board and staff, - and, consequently, all other MSM vehicles that follow the NYT's lead - to represent anyone or anything? Who the hell gave them the power to think they speak on behalf of my best interests?
We simply cannot allow the usurption of our rights and the prostitution of the electoral system by the media.
Posted by Val Prieto at July 21, 2008 01:56 PM
Comments
Wow!
Sounds like the NYT is desperate. Obama has, according to Drudge, already refuse to seat a New Yorker Magazine (a different news source) reporter because he wrote a piece critical of Obaman. ...
Posted by: Larry Daley ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.babalublog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 21, 2008 02:52 PM
"I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written."
Don't you love it? I expect that's pretty much what they told Professor Eire. The translation, of course, is "I'm not publishing this because it doesn't fit my agenda."
Hypocritical, two-faced assholes.
Posted by: asombra at July 21, 2008 02:52 PM
When is the last time the NY Times received a bomb threat? hahahahahaha If you don't post it, I'll understand. :)
Posted by: readytoshoot at July 21, 2008 03:26 PM
Just post the editorial, and let the people speak afterwards!
Posted by: j2tharome at July 21, 2008 04:01 PM
It would be easier to get a piece by Osama Ben Ladin in the NY Times.
Posted by: Henry Agueros at July 21, 2008 04:22 PM
Hey they got Fidel his job remember; they publish Hamas spokesman, give discounts to MoveOn.org, put didn't publish Petraeus last year; no surprise.
Posted by: narciso79 at July 21, 2008 05:27 PM
The New York Times is nothing more than a Fifth Column in American Body Politics. They are one of the reasons why Fidel Castro has been able to stay in power for so long. Their refusal to report inpartially on Cuba and their penchant to report Castro's press releases has made it unnecessary for Castro to sell Gramma in the USA.
The New York Times's slogan of "All the News that's Fit to Print" should be changed to All the News that [We See] Fit to Print.
Posted by: Ray at July 21, 2008 08:16 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
