fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Liberal Media Alert? Not Exactly…

The right-wing media is abuzz today with the news that the New York Times has rejected John McCain’s editorial responding to Barack Obama’s recent op-ed in the Times. The Drudge Report puts it rather simply: “An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a […]

The right-wing media is abuzz today with the news that the New York Times has rejected John McCain’s editorial responding to Barack Obama’s recent op-ed in the Times. The Drudge Report puts it rather simply: “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”. What possible explanation could possibly make sense of this editorial decision? The Times has always been labeled by the Right as the lead demon in the “liberal media” (Bill Kristol notwithstanding) for years. This just reinforces what Rush, Hannity, and co. have known all along.

Not quite. Drudge explains the NYT’s objections as follows:

‘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.’

NYT’s Shipley advised McCain to try again: ‘I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft.’ … Shipley, who is on vacation this week, explained his decision not to run the editorial.

‘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.’

Shipley continues: ‘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.’

Shipley obviously sees the two pieces as being very different types of pieces, one worthy of printing and one not. Now if his basis for seeing the two differently was ideological, than by all means the McCain has a right to be upset. McCain campaign staffers have claimed that the NYT is basically asking the Senator to change his policy on Iraq, not just re-work the draft. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds released a rather nebulous statement, saying:

John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times.

Ultimately, one is either left believing Shipley’s explanation or left convinced of his own bias. Too bad for talk-radio America that Shipley has a point and the McCain campaign does not.

An analysis of Obama’s piece alongside McCain’s allows for even the casual reader to notice a few major differences right away. Obama’s is an original thought piece, where a unique proposal for withdrawal is made, and the situation on the ground is considered and integrated into the argument. Obama mentions McCain three times. He is clear about his intentions to work with the Iraqi government in acknowledging their desire for US troop withdrawals. He is also clear about his opposition to permanent US bases in Iraq.

Instead of offering a proper counter to Obama (by outlining his own plans for the region in specific terms) McCain instead submitted a childish attack piece, where the main issue is Obama, not Iraq. Obama is mentioned ten times in McCain’s piece, and McCain’s own plans for Iraq are barely even mentioned. In the entire piece he only mentions his plan in the following manner:

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.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons.

Considering this information, it seems pretty clear that Shipley was looking to preserve the integrity of the NYT’s Op-Ed page by not allowing it to become a schoolyard brawl, complete with finger pointing and name calling. Indeed, McCain’s near-900 word piece basically boils down to “I’m a winner. Obama is a loser.”

Even though major media outlets such as the NYT never need lower-level mouthpieces defending their editorial decisions, it seems clear why this was done. The Times was right to ask the McCain camp to rewrite the piece. It is in the interests of the American people to see the two candidates exchanging blows on two clear and unique policy proposals. Newspapers that give a voice to the constant back-and-forth nonsense that has become the norm in American political life are better left unopened. No bias to be found here.

Never a fan of the Times myself, I say “Cheers” to Shipley for saying no to the Arizona bully. We’re all better for it.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here