NY Times refuses John McCain editorial

[motivez]

I don't agree with the decision not to publish the response, being that it's a privately owned newspaper they can of course do what they want, but they lessen their credibility as a 'paper of record' when they refuse to help further the dialogue between the candidates by providing both of them with access to the editorial pages, IMO.

That said, I have found it extremely amusing reading some of the Republican responses about how the NY Times has a "responsibility" to provide McCain with that access, essentially promoting the "fairness doctrine" while at the same time aggressively opposing it when they think it would benefit the Democrats (ie: talk radio)

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't agree with the decision not to publish the response, being that it's a privately owned newspaper they can of course do what they want, but they lessen their credibility as a 'paper of record' when they refuse to help further the dialogue between the candidates by providing both of them with access to the editorial pages, IMO.

That said, I have found it extremely amusing reading some of the Republican responses about how the NY Times has a "responsibility" to provide McCain with that access, essentially promoting the "fairness doctrine" while at the same time aggressively opposing it when they think it would benefit the Democrats (ie: talk radio)

Thats true and those are excellent points. They don't have to publish it, but for the sake of their reputation to the readers they should have. They didn't, they have every right not to do so and if the screw up was bad in the market eyes they'll continue to lose readers as they have since the 1990s.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

That said, I have found it extremely amusing reading some of the Republican responses about how the NY Times has a "responsibility" to provide McCain with that access, essentially promoting the "fairness doctrine" while at the same time aggressively opposing it when they think it would benefit the Democrats (ie: talk radio)

I disagree.

Saying the paper has a responsibility to publish it is quite different than trying to force them through law to give equal time. I've never heard anyone say anything even remotely close to "they should be required to print it" like the dems say "they should be required to make air time available" when talking about fairness doctrine.

[motivez]

semantics

I used the wrong word, it wasn't "responsibility" the official House Republicans used, it was "obligation":

"A national publication such as the Times has a clear obligation to provide equal access to its op-ed page to both candidates," the Republicans wrote, "to convey fairness by the paper and to help further the national debate."

The Crypt: House Republicans fire off letter to New York Times - Politico.com

The paper certainly doesn't have any "responsibility" or "obligation" to provide equal access to its editorial pages, it's a privately owned company that can do what it wants.

Of course there's a difference in that they aren't trying to pass a law (just crying about the lack of equal access, for now), but the argument is exactly the same at it's most fundamental: that privately owned companies have a responsibility, obligation (whatever word you want to use) to provide equal coverage to different political views because it benefits the public.

I've also seen plenty of Republicans talking about the fairness doctrine and whatnot in response to this, I never said it was some official Republican movement in my response.

[saabguy]

Originally Posted by motivez

That said, I have found it extremely amusing reading some of the Republican responses about how the NY Times has a "responsibility" to provide McCain with that access, essentially promoting the "fairness doctrine" while at the same time aggressively opposing it when they think it would benefit the Democrats (ie: talk radio)

the fairness doctrine has to deal with political opinion/entertainment shows, not sources that claim to be "news." how would conservatives complaining about the NYT's actions be in any way related to the retarded "fairness doctrine?"

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by saabguy

the fairness doctrine has to deal with political opinion/entertainment shows, not sources that claim to be "news."

This would have been printed in the op-ed section just like the piece that Obama wrote. How is that not opinion/entertainment?


Yes, this is just like the fairness doctrine and motivez made a fantastic point.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by saabguy

the fairness doctrine has to deal with political opinion/entertainment shows, not sources that claim to be "news." how would conservatives complaining about the NYT's actions be in any way related to the retarded "fairness doctrine?"

Obama's "opinion piece" in the "opinion editorial" section of the New York Times doesn't qualify as "political opinion" to you?

[JaJae]

The common conservative response I've seen is the opinion that if NY Times wants to be unbiased and impartial they should run the editorial. I don't think I've read an opinion that the NY Times has a responsibility to run it other than in the context to remain unbiased or impartial. If their view is that they have the responsibility to run it in the same way as the Fairness Doctrine to play fair to both sides then I would agree it is hypocritical if that same person is against the Fairness Doctrine. I do, however, believe that an underlying difference between this is that talk radio is typically conservative or liberal and they make no bones about it. NY Times pretends to be non-partial and if they wish to hold that stance they're showing their blatant bias by not running McCain's piece.

In the end I tihnk this worked out better for McCain because he ended up with more publicity and other papers ran it anyway. So the NY Times with their liberal agenda actually hurt themselves by not running the piece. Not only did it get picked up by competitors and they were made the fool (yet again), but it actually helped McCain and I'm sure their stock will continue to fall to nothing.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Scrum

This would have been printed in the op-ed section just like the piece that Obama wrote. How is that not opinion/entertainment?


Yes, this is just like the fairness doctrine and motivez made a fantastic point.

it would be a fantastic point except for one minor difference...... dems want to bring back a law to FORCE fairness doctrine, GOP is just bitching that "to be fair" they need to print his reply.

so actually that's not a minor point, but I digress.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by 7960

it would be a fantastic point except for one minor difference...... dems want to bring back a law to FORCE fairness doctrine, GOP is just bitching that "to be fair" they need to print his reply.

so actually that's not a minor point, but I digress.

Thats a good point, but took motz statement to be directed at those saying the NY Times should be REQUIRED to print it. Which a lot of republicans were saying. Which is ridiculous. They should print it in the interest of integrity but they should not be required to print it, that is how I read his comments.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Thats a good point, but took motz statement to be directed at those saying the NY Times should be REQUIRED to print it. Which a lot of republicans were saying. Which is ridiculous. They should print it in the interest of integrity but they should not be required to print it, that is how I read his comments.

Yeah, "obligation" "required" "responsibility to" ..

I mean, the way many Republicans were talking about it is certainly in the spirit of the "fairness doctrine." Even if they aren't trying to pass a law (for now), their comments sounded mighty similar to the arguments the Democrats have used when arguing for a return to it.

And some of the blog comments I've read have been hilarious, some saying maybe we do need a fairness doctrine, and things like that after being so angry at the amount of favorable coverage Obama has been getting

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

... (for now),

come on.

their comments sounded mighty similar to the arguments the Democrats have used when arguing for a return to it.

except for that part where dems said "law" and GOP didn't.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

come on.

They've proven to be hypocrites many times over and have embraced things that no one would have believed 10 years ago, like these bailouts and other massive spending projects, so it certainly wouldn't be the first time they reversed themselves on an issue once thought to be central to their platform.

Originally Posted by 7960

except for that part where dems said "law" and GOP didn't.

Irrelevant to the point I was making

[David Octavius]

I didn't know law monopolized force - last I checked using a PR blitz is a force of a different kind and allows the GOP to bitch about fairness while saying they are against the "fairness doctrine". Having their cake and eating it too