digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

House Republicans Fire Off Letter To New York Times

cbsnews.com — In a move reminiscent of past flaps over the perception of liberal bias among mainstream media outlets, House Republicans distributed a letter on Wednesday formally "urging" The New York Times to allow a third party to take out a full-page ad featuring a rejected opinion piece by their party's presidential candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nblsavage, on 07/23/2008, -58/+123Cry some more losers.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/24/2008, -37/+23....and what would you be doing if this was Obama being rejected?

      Thought so....you'd probably also add a cry or two of racism in there, just for good measure.
      • nblsavage, on 07/24/2008, -11/+22How about me throwing the same question at you...what would you be doing if Obama had been rejected. Either nothing or crowing about it. In my case, I'm smart enough to know that the paper can approve or reject anything it damn well pleases.
      • dcmjzero, on 07/24/2008, -9/+18my opinion wouldn't have changed in this case. mccain's op ed give no plans about what he would do. it just says obama is wrong. if it was a well-written piece with actual content, they might have run it.
      • jdenzer, on 07/24/2008, -8/+13Yeah, but it's the right who thinks we are a 'Nation Of Whiners'
      • PolishLogic, on 07/24/2008, -9/+11@nblsavage

        Honestly? I'd be just as miffed about a widely known and circulated newspaper favoring one candidate over another. Then again, I've got nothing at stake in terms of siding with McCain or Obama. The office of President is not on my list of things I'll be casting votes on in November. I happen to dislike Obama quite a bit more than I do McCain, but that doesn't make me want to vote for McCain. Regardless of that, fairness would be nice to see in terms of a major news outlet's treatment of the candidates. How would you feel if McCain asked to speak on CNN and was allowed, but CNN decided to turn Obama down after he asked, by saying "we don't think our viewers should really hear what you have to say".

        Sorry, but that's ***** ridiculous regardless of who you support.

        @dcmjzero

        So McCain should have written something that doesn't bother to address Obama's assertions? If Mr. Fictitious Candidate A had written a piece something like "I believe that in order to win the war, we should indiscriminately carpet bomb Iraq's cities", Mr. Fictitious Candidate B has no business rebutting that?

        An op ed piece is an opinion, that's it.
      • jdigg06, on 07/24/2008, -7/+5SO true. Thank you for saying this.
      • InfamousAtheist, on 07/24/2008, -8/+7You're ***** full of ***** PolishLogic. Anyone who has read your comment history over time knows you see things in black and white. Republicans are always right and Democrats are always wrong in your book. Stop wasting your breath trying to convince us you take the high road when it comes to partisanship.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5@infamousatheist

        So that would explain why I'm opposed to FISA, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, the war on drugs, Afghanistan, and Iraq, right?

        Why didn't you add to your comment that fact that you're upset because I don't share your philosophy 100%, and show blind allegiance to a a guy who has pretty much changed most of his major positions he used to secure a presidential nomination?
      • FredFredrickson, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2I think I'd be scratching my head, wondering why Obama couldn't follow their simple directions and write a letter that answered the questions they asked. But you know, that's just me. You can cry and whine about all this fairness ***** if you want.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2You mean the questions they posed after the rejection took place? It's odd, because the "not answering the questions they asked" excuse is now the 3rd version I've heard about the reason they chose not to run it.

        First it was because he attacked merely Obama's position, then it was because his submission was simply full of errors, now it's because he didn't speak to some questions that the NYT had given him to write about? As more stories that pop up, each claiming to be "the reason" that the piece was rejected, it sure makes it seem more like the reason was purely because it was written by the person who opposes Obama.

        "You can cry and whine about all this fairness ***** if you want"
        It's amazing how quickly this stance is adopted when you have the upper hand, isn't it?
      • BeardDob, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1PolishLogic fairly well dominated this one ... poor attempt at a rebuttal infamousatheist. The points put forth by the Logic were fair and reasonable. Too bad you could not just accept that for what it was.
    • jackal858, on 07/24/2008, -22/+17Further proof that people who surf this site are overwhelmingly liberal. Typically such a short and not thought out response would be buried, but not when it helps the liberal cause. Bury on libs of digg.
      • altgeeky1, on 07/24/2008, -4/+11It sucks when more people disagree with you than agree with you, but it's hardly unfair.
      • jackal858, on 07/24/2008, -8/+5I don't mind it, this simply proves my suspicions about the political tendencies of the active digg community.
      • longhrnfan, on 07/24/2008, -8/+5the liberals on digg are blindly liberal. They offer nothing but burials for anything they disagree with.
      • zombies187, on 07/24/2008, -2/+4"this simply proves my suspicions about the political tendencies of the active digg community."
        You say that like you are gathering evidence. Any one who looks can tell. Thats the whole point!
      • jackal858, on 07/24/2008, -2/+0Well unlike some, I don't like to carry out judgement on someone or a group of people's character without "gathering evidence". Now I know.

        I am not "conservative" by the way. I simply find it amusing when anyone so blindly follows politics.
      • StGhurka, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1"It sucks when more people disagree with you than agree with you"

        True, but that's not what he was commenting on. The parent was a pointed, mean-spirited statement with no substance, designed to do nothing but insult people - and it gets piles of diggs. If it were someone from my side flinging insults at the other side, I'd be embarrassed by it, and I'd be even more embarrassed by the mob cheering them on.

        If you feel that "Cry some more losers." deserves applause, then that is much more a reflection on you than on the other side. It makes you a left wing version of Ann Coulter.

    • doublebummer, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Here is the censored op-ed piece:

      http://www.nypost.com/seven/07222008/postopinion/o ...
      • SpacePoet, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Nobody cares about the actual piece, they just want to cry discrimination for stupidity.
    • rubikon, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2uuummm...

      cart.
      meet horse

      / even if i WAS voting for BHO, I'd still say this seems a BIT early for a victory celebration.
      // just sayin'
    • duckley, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2They should have published it.

      IT WAS WHINEY, SELF-PITYING CRAP.

      If NYT had published this, it would have really hurt McCain.
    • TheInformer, on 07/25/2008, -1/+2If McCain had an op-ed published, and Obama's was rejected, there'd be a hissy fit going on.
      • nblsavage, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1Maybe, but we know for sure that the repubs are throwing one :)
  • michaelpinto, on 07/24/2008, -25/+100Maybe instead they should act to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine"? Why should the New York Times need to be any more fair than Fox News?
    • ouzome, on 07/24/2008, -34/+12Yeah, the fairness doctrine is the solution, what a complete moron!
      • relic180, on 07/24/2008, -8/+21Wow. You're kind of a ***** dick, huh.
      • djholybolt, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2indeed.. ***** dick.
      • ouzome, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1at least i don't get ***** by dicks . . .you guys have no clue what the fairness doctrine is anways
    • Cancerkitty, on 07/24/2008, -2/+40I would think the New York Times would want to hold itself to a higher standard, but that's just me.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6You would think, but they've been utterly incapable of doing so.
      • ianam, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4They do hold themselves to a higher standard, which is exactly why they rejected McCain's piece, which was purely trashing Obama, and asked that he instead submit a piece equivalent to Obama's that lays out his plan for Iraq.
      • tkstock, on 07/25/2008, -1/+1Yeah, they hold themselves to a higher standard. Yeah.. yeah. Sure. Yeah Um hmmm. Yeah.

        If taking Obama's points and explaining why they were wrong is "TRASHING" him, then Obama has been TRASHING McCain the whole time.

        I don't think Obama countering McCain's policies is trashing McCain, and I don't think McCain countering Obama's policies is trashing him either. If you can't explain why your opponents positions are wrong, then it wouldn't be much of a race!

        What is not called for are personal attacks, and I hope the respective organizations keep it civil, but I know they won't.
    • mossrockss, on 07/24/2008, -7/+14It seems to me that they should let McCain write what he wants. If it's utter crap when compared to what Obama wrote, then that should speak for itself. NYT censoring him for any reason (other than if he like slandered the paper itself falsely, in which case it would be in their best interest not to publish it) is just going to further their image of a biased paper. Let the candidates speak for themselves and let the people decide who they prefer. the Times should not be an unfair gatekeeper - they should let the marketplace of ideas be their guiding principle, not the opinion of the editors.
      • sizzzzlerz, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6McSame wrote what he wanted. The Times chose not to publish it because it didn't meet their criteria for publishing it. That isn't censoring. They've rejected submissions like this before.
      • charm803, on 07/24/2008, -4/+8They've rejected pieces by former President Clinton in the past.

        All McCain did was turn in the first draft. He doesn't know how to take constructive criticism.

        How did you think he would do, graduating from the bottom of his class and all? To have great writing skills?!!?
    • itzdiceman, on 07/24/2008, -19/+4Fox News is the only example you have.
    • MikeFallopian, on 07/24/2008, -4/+13The "Fairness Doctrine" is in complete opposition to the freedom of the press. There is nothing wrong with having biased media outlets - it is the responsibility of the people to choose to support respectable journalism.
      • Loonacy, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6We're doomed.
      • JigoroKano, on 07/24/2008, -1/+5I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic given that it was primarily Republicans who deservedly tore down the very antiquated "Fairness Doctrine".
      • wishninja, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7I agree as long as it is a free market like the internet. But these other markets are controlled by bigger media forces and heavy government influences. For example the FCC has made it imposable to start a private broadcasting company by all the mandates they have and they allow large companies to buy out dial space and not use it.
      • cesig, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3The 'freedom of the press' is what has led to the never-ending deluge of pointless celebrity gossip and uneven political coverage. It's why Fox news is allowed to exist, despite the fact that it is black hole for knowledge and information.

        The media was originally considered a tool for the public good. Now it's just a moneymaker, and the entire nation suffers as a result. All we get now are the opinions of the corporations that own the media outlets.

        'Freedom of the press' is in direct opposition to a knowledgeable general public. It's no wonder so many people think Obama is a Muslim, and won't vote for him because his middle name is Hussein.

    • zydeco, on 07/24/2008, -4/+7Seems to me that if the NYT wanted McCain to beef up and clarify his points, wouldn't that be HELPING his campaign?

      The logic in this campaign on ALL sides is so inverted, it's really astonishing.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4His points were that Obama is wrong.

        "But in asking for specific timetables and figures, Shipley missed the essence of McCains argument. Hes not going to rely on predetermined timetables and dates. Hes going to keep victory as the goal, set a few checkpoints along the way and adapt his strategy based on whats happening on the ground in Iraq, not on what he thought was a good plan six months ago."

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/22/politics ...
    • jack104, on 07/24/2008, -14/+7Fox isn't unfair, they are neutral but from the far left's leaning viewpoint it looks unfair. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make things unfair.
      • supremebeing18, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7Hahahaha. Even my grandparents, who lean toward the right on almost all issues, recognize that Fox is completely biased and unfair.
      • jack104, on 07/25/2008, -1/+0and cnn isn't completely biased and unfair? When was the last time you heard CNN singing McCain's praises?
    • sifuchar, on 07/24/2008, -4/+4I don't know about Fox News in general, but The O'Reilley Factor show has invited Obama to appear on several occasions. It's not like he's showing up and Fox won't put him on.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Bill has treated Obama with kid gloves - any complaints about his coverage of Obama are unfounded and just plain ignorant of the facts.

        Sean Hannity, however, is much harder on Obama. He hammers the same points over and over again. He's not one of my favorite hosts, but it's good that he's balanced out by Colmes.
    • timmers0, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1The "fairness doctrine" mandates that radio stations (but not newspapers or television outlets) provide FREE time for opponents of the viewpoint being presented.

      That's completely different from this situation, where republicans are willing to PAY for ad space.

      On this issue, at least, the Republican position is completely reasonable.
  • Cheezo, on 07/24/2008, -19/+62a few more quarters of 82% loss and the ny times will be history
  • DigSomeMore, on 07/24/2008, -25/+34Wah wah...
  • lecentre, on 07/24/2008, -58/+50The NYT is constantly displaying a liberal bias... it's so proven it's not even a debate anymore. It's not "omg, shocking" it's "hmm, again?".
    • onyxcoltrane, on 07/24/2008, -10/+37If they had a liberal bias they would have done their job during the runup to the Iraq War and challenged the lies coming from the White House. They would not have bought into the neocon propaganda machine.
      • MacBigot, on 07/24/2008, -10/+15You mean the same "propaganda" espoused by New York's Senator Hillary Clinton?
      • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7@MacBigot

        That is exactly right, as a matter of fact. Clinton isn't liberal, either.
      • geoffg, on 07/24/2008, -4/+1"If they had a liberal bias they would have done their job during the runup to the Iraq War and challenged the lies coming from the White House. They would not have bought into the neocon propaganda machine."

        How quickly the liberal mind erases history and reshapes it to fit their "good intentioned" view of what the world should be instead of what it is...the majority of Democrats in Congress voted FOR the war in Iraq, remember?

        http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/ira ...
        "The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against."
      • jamesfaction, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Those 29 Democrats bought into the neocon propaganda machine just as much as the NYT did. There's no "erases history" here, we all know what they did.
      • geoffg, on 07/25/2008, -1/+0"Those 29 Democrats bought into the neocon propaganda machine just as much as the NYT did. There's no "erases history" here, we all know what they did."

        Does the "neocon propaganda machine" boogy man myth you've constructed in your mind help satisfy something else that's missing? Does it give your life some kind of purpose to believe that radical Islam is an American construct (or rather a "neocon") one? Is it your calling like a Christian preacher on a quest to save souls?

    • dcmjzero, on 07/24/2008, -13/+3and? both sides have their news outlets. nyt for the left, fox for the right.
    • nathanbutnet, on 07/24/2008, -3/+8Sadly it is the bias (e.g. that the NYT is constantly liberal) that you express lecentre that Cheney, Rice and BushCo used to start the Iraq war meaning they banked on the fact that people would say to themselves 'Oh NYT is left leaning so what they are saying about Iraqi aluminum tubes must be right - they wouldn't let the right just pump them ***** to start a war.'

      This is by way of saying that generally the NYT does seem to lean towards the left, but stay vigilant about any media outlets and don't fall into the trap of painting any large media outlet with one brush.
    • Gorehog, on 07/24/2008, -4/+9You know, there used to be a law requiring equal time and fair representation. The Republicans got rid of it because it hindered their use of unlimited money to promote their candidates. They used that advantage all they could. Now they're in a position where nobody trusts them and no one wants to give them a voice. So now they CRY CRY CRY that their boy cant get his indecisive views posted? Cry me a river.
    • pintomp3, on 07/24/2008, -7/+11NYT has a liberal bias? just because something isn't all out republican propaganda like fox news doesn't mean it has a liberal bias. you seem to forget all the cheerleading for the war judith miller and the NYT did. there is no liberal bias in our corporate media.
      • Tebixan, on 07/24/2008, -2/+6Conservatives have declared that anything that doesn't effectively campaign for their issues has a liberal bias. They seem to think the only way someone could oppose them is if they were part of some grand conspiracy to destroy freedom and rainbows.
    • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -2/+1Equal time is *****.
      Fairness is *****.
      Balance is *****.
      The only thing that should matter is TRUTH.

      If they should give McCain "equal time," then why shouldn't they give Kucinich, Paul, Gravel, and Nader "equal time?" The seemingly easy answer is, "Because McCain is a 'serious' candidate." The problem with that reasoning is that he only became a "serious" candidate because the media said so. What difference does bias make anyway? If it is bias toward truth, then isn't it inherently good? Our media is biased against Nazis. We don't give them "equal time." This is because we know their cause to be devoid of reason and disgusting. But let's not forget that the original claim of "liberal media bias" came from the folks who wanted the US to join WWII on the Fascist side, and accused the "Liberal Jewish Media" of bias against Germany. Their cause wasn't any more right back then than it is now, just because more people subscribed to it then. If half the country believed that 2+2=5, that doesn't mean that the media should report such a falsehood. Quite the contrary, the media has a responsibility to report FACT. There is no reason to allow right wing people to air their ideas in the media. Their ideas are not reflective of reality, therefore news SHOULD be "biased" against them, just as it is "biased" against Nazis, "biased" against people who think that 2+2=5, and "biased" against bolsheviks.
  • sogeshirts, on 07/24/2008, -5/+77Most media outlets are biased.
    • pintomp3, on 07/24/2008, -7/+7most corporate media are biased towards the right. pbs and npr are relatively center, though they have been swinging to the rights since having to rely more on corporate sponsorship. fox news is straight up propaganda.
      • dgaspard, on 07/24/2008, -4/+6I love how people always say left sided media outlets are relatively center.
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7Yes, pbs and npr are relatively center when compared to DailyKOS and MoveOn.
      • jackal858, on 07/24/2008, -2/+0@dgaspard, tkstock

        You know what's going on.
    • Tebixan, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Mathematics is the only language that is bias proof, everything else written by a human being will likely in part be a reflection of the person who wrote it. Sometimes politicians even declare math to be biased. (When it doesn't reflect their views)
      • tkstock, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Well, it's been shown that Obama says he has one policy on Iraq, and that policy is a 16 month withdrawal, and also a withdrawal based on conditions on the ground.

        So, for Obama, 1 + 1 = 1

        Math IS biased.
      • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Yeah...remember how Einstein's equations were too "Liberal and Jewish?"
    • TruthTeller50, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1All media is bias. See Tebixan for the "why".
    • mandraque, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2There is no bias here. If you have ever read anything by McCain you would understand, hes a horrible writer.
    • zombies187, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Democracy Now showcases the underdogs of current events. Minorities, women, protesters of all kinds. If they're being occupied, they're being interviewed. The host, Amy Goodman, asks short, open ended questions and never passes uncorroborated information. It's the only real antidote to MSM that I know of.
    • timmers0, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Fox == Conservative
      ABC, NYTimes, etc. == moderately liberal
      MSNBC, NPR == very liberal
  • michaelwong38, on 07/24/2008, -18/+36What the hell is New York Times? What the hell is Fox News? I know of only Digg and that's it. Who still buys newspapers or watches TV?
    • onyxcoltrane, on 07/24/2008, -0/+14Without honest journalism you can kiss democracy goodbye for good. Digg and internet users depend on journalistic research from newspapers.
      • pintomp3, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7there is very little journalism going on anywhere. real investigations cost money, upset the powers that be, and don't get the ratings local fluff pieces do.
      • beesaretasty, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Digg relies on the journalistic research of The Huffington Post.
    • Zain123, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4You seem to think most Americans are logged onto Digg.
    • Zipko, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1Digg doesn't have enough Baseball Tonight for me, so I've still got to watch TV for some of my news. Other than that though, I get most updates from Digg and BBC online.
    • FredFredrickson, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Eh, social media sites like Digg are fun, but I would never treat them as a real source of news. The people who post stories are often more biased than the MSM, and everything gets here a day late. Plus there's not much local about Digg. It's national / world news or nuthin'.
  • DeathWish808, on 07/24/2008, -3/+52Listening to the media nowadays is like asking a bunch of 2nd graders "Who ate the teacher's brownie?". Good luck finding the real truth.
    • drwaterside, on 07/24/2008, -3/+18i have switched from MSM to PBS and NPR for news. At least, they give me the facts instead of stupid partisan opinions
      • zombies187, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1NPRCheck clues you in when they stray too far to the right.
    • johnnick, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4I find that the BBC is generally unbiased (and usually somewhat amused) when it comes to US politics.
    • dpdawson, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3PBS and NPR are decent.

      C-SPAN is where it is at, though, if you have the time. Rather than watching arguments between surrogates who parrot the extreme views of the left or right, why not listen to what the actual politicians are saying? Also, when you do get idiots on C-SPAN, you get to watch their irrational arguments implode all by themselves because there is nobody constantly interrupting.
  • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -7/+26NYTimes.com can't possibly influence the voting majority. Repubs want to counter-attack this media outlet w/ the very same tactic they're complaining about.
  • BCCStu, on 07/24/2008, -3/+49They can urge the paper to do whatever the hell they want...as long as freedom of the press exists...they don't have to do anything about it.
  • Greenpointer, on 07/24/2008, -14/+24Didn't they read the "No Whining" sign above the Capital Building door?
  • AmyVernon, on 07/24/2008, -10/+42honestly, the NYT should have just taken it. if they published Obama's op-ed, they should have pubbed McCain's, if for no other reason than they had to have known this would happen. it's stupid. the opinion pages are supposed to be biased, that's their biz, but it's stupid to just keep one side from having its say...
    • DisposableRob, on 07/24/2008, -4/+12It's odd that now the NYT demands fact-supported opinions in their paper when they continue to publish Bill Kristol.
    • pintomp3, on 07/24/2008, -6/+7they didn't say they wouldn't publish it. they asked for revisions, just like they do with other submissions.
      • curtisag, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2No, they did reject it because the revisions requested are unreasonable for an opinion piece. We're not talking about grammar here, we're talking about fundamental changes to the piece. It would cease to be his opinion if he gave into what they're asking of him.
      • jamesfaction, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Rubbish. McCain wrote an opinion piece hating on Obama. Obama talked about all sorts of things in his op ed as well as McCain.

        All they did is ask McCain to define what victory in Iraq means for him, in order to widen the scope of the piece away from just Obama this, Obama that, Obama blabla, and banging on about victory without defining it.

        That's not a fundamental change, thats a really simple and sensible request for a revision.

        Or are you suggesting it's too hard for McCain to define victory in Iraq? In that case, he fails.
    • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1"...but it's stupid to just keep one side from having its say..."

      The media created the "two sides." Why not give three sides their say? Or four? Or six?
  • infodoc1, on 07/24/2008, -4/+37Hey CBS, why don't you guys just write up an amazing essay and credit it to McCain.
  • antipoet, on 07/24/2008, -5/+23Here's the Obama piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama. ...
  • Fangsinmybeard, on 07/24/2008, -4/+10I'd take this news as an opportunity for the other parties beyond the two party dominion to give voice to the masses. Obviously the GOP has given permission to go outside the Pentagon's message management practices.
  • umbriago, on 07/24/2008, -8/+16Get your own newspaper, crooks (oh, wait, Wall Street Journal calling)
  • ModestMoby, on 07/24/2008, -8/+88Clinton got rejected a few times on NYT op-eds, too. And he's a good writer. So...maybe this has less to do with him being a Republican and more to do with his article just...you know...sucking?
    • kingnothing1, on 07/24/2008, -1/+33I'm gonna have to agree with you there. People have automatically assumed that they rejected it just because he's a republican. Maybe it's because the content was poor or poorly written?
      • superkendall, on 07/24/2008, -23/+4Nope, McCain published the article and it was fine - just not what the NYT wanted to hear.
      • neognostic, on 07/24/2008, -2/+20I read it in full, and I've seen better articles written by High School students. It's logic was severely flawed, it had numerous factual errors, and frankly didn't bring anything new to the table. Just a lot of whining about Obama this, Obama that.
      • ColuberSum, on 07/24/2008, -8/+0And I have read things written by High School students that are some of the most brilliant pieces ever written. Some of those things are better than anything that you are going to find McCain, Obama, Clinton, or any other politician writing.

        And I too read the article in full. There were swipes at Obama but there were not logical flaws. The logic is only wrong if you think that the initial premisses are flawed.
    • StusGhost, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3They should be able to buy an ad though. Don't you think?
      • emkaysmith, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Sure. If they have any money left in the campaign coffers. And it will be headed "PAID POLITICAL AD," which isn't what they originally wanted, I'm sure.
      • hmphargh, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1And an op-ed by a presidential candidate is not essentially an unpaid political ad? If the article was rubbish, then I can understand it, and I hope that is the reason why it was rejected, but it does certainly look questionable.
      • JinnRikki, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Of course they can "buy" an ad. But they, you or I should not assume we have a "right" to have anything published we submit to a newspaper.
        Considering the article was deemed to be nothing more than campaign rhetoric dressed up for publication it seems completely appropriate that it was rejected.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6Your comment makes entirely too much sense for most people to really understand... since the NYT rejected a Republican's article, then it had to have been because of their liberal bias.

      Seriously... McCain's losing so he whines about media coverage and bias. He needs to get back to demonstrating his ignorance about the war, economics, and history.

      The NYT thing also distracting him from his next flip-flop.
    • minox, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Ok, I don't know if anyone understands this. But I'll give it a go. Politicians don't actually write their own articles! They have 3 or 4 people who work for their campaign knock it out and then give it to the candidate to read. So this has nothing to do with the actual writing ability of the candidate.
  • peticsu, on 07/24/2008, -6/+24maybe if McCain was to go beyond the neanderthal win-lose, us or them, victory or defeat kind of mindset not only would they print him, more people would be prone to vote for him...
  • bernandoo, on 07/24/2008, -9/+11having a bias makes the news more interesting.
    • TruthTeller50, on 07/24/2008, -3/+1This comment is like dish I once ordered at a Chinese restaurant:
      egg foo dumb.
    • bernandoo, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1i'm just saying that telling a story requires a point of view.. and that point of view usually becomes "bias". Media outlets use bias to attract a specific demographic so they can make money off of them with advertising.
  • onyxcoltrane, on 07/24/2008, -6/+8Here's a bootleg copy of McCain's editorial. :)
    http://digg.com/politics/The_REAL_Rejected_McCain_ ...
  • lhbaker, on 07/24/2008, -10/+14What a bunch of ***** hypocrites.
  • PolishLogic, on 07/24/2008, -9/+8Reminds me of when the Democrats wrote that pathetic letter that Rush Limbaugh ended up selling for a nice chunk of change on eBay.
    • shauncorleone, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4You mean the one where all the proceeds went to charity? Yeah, I think you mean that one.
  • jacothedevil, on 07/24/2008, -8/+4who the hell cares about bias in the news. objectivity is an illusion.
    • BillOReilly08, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2No, it's just hard. But this is America, and we're great at making up excuses as a way out of doing anything truly difficult.
    • JigoroKano, on 07/24/2008, -1/+1If objectivity is an illusion then scientific progress would be impossible.
  • tcbishop12, on 07/24/2008, -6/+16I think the NY Times did McCain a favor by refusing to publish his vague and unconnected rant. But go ahead, GOP. Print it up so that everyone can see how effenn ignorant McCain really is.
  • usingpond, on 07/24/2008, -9/+5CBS News? *Fart noise*
  • superkendall, on 07/24/2008, -12/+13Regardless of how you feel about McCain it's pretty shady for the paper to give time to Obama but no opportunity for rebuttal.
    • peticsu, on 07/24/2008, -5/+7copy and pasting your stump speech is not exactly a rebuttal
    • jack104, on 07/24/2008, -7/+2I agree.....its simple logic, liberals have always cried about "fair" when they won't even extend the same courtesy.
    • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2ARRRRGG!!!!

      Nobody ***** gets it. The whole idea of a two-party race is a self-fulfilling prophesy created by the same media. Why not allow 10 people to write full-page op-eds?
    • jamesfaction, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5*sigh*. They asked McCain for a revision, they did not reject it outright. This is NOT an example of bias like everyone is trumpeting about. It's an example of quality control.
  • kierucom, on 07/24/2008, -9/+7Maybe the Republican Party should thank the New York Times for refusing the piece. After all, is it not just as likely that it was refused not due to a devilish liberal plot against the Republican Party... and more that the piece was just not of high enough quality to credit a Presidential nominee?
  • chrissku, on 07/24/2008, -10/+13We gave the republicans 8 years to plot a course for our country. They ***** up. Now they need to sit back and let others try to clean up their mess. Listening to them cry in the background is only a distraction.
    • psiege, on 07/24/2008, -8/+4Clean up the mess like the demtards have done in the past two years, right? What's the demtard controlled congress' approval rating...9%!
      • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Amusing. Enjoy your last couple months of relevance.
  • BillOReilly08, on 07/24/2008, -1/+8Really glad our elected and paid representatives are using their time for such an important matter.
  • PReitz, on 07/24/2008, -4/+6Molehill = Mountain. It was just an opinion piece.

    And to waylay the inevitable response, yes, I would say this even if it happened to Obama. In fact I would be more insistent about it. It's such a non issue.
  • SirTheGuy, on 07/24/2008, -1/+9We need to flush the system and start over
  • SOS84, on 07/24/2008, -11/+15Had McCain written a factually correct op-ed, instead of one that features many distortions, half truths and out-right lies that flew in the face of documented facts and common knowledge, the Times would not have had to (and rightly so) refuse to publish it.
    • psiege, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5Obviously, you haven't read the op-ed.
      • SOS84, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Actually, I have read the op-ed. And the Times was right. You must get your news from talk radio or Faux News.
    • merlin5, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3So anything that doesn't conform to your distorted narrative is a half-truth and outright lie? To me the craziest thing is how left thinks the right are liars, right thinks the left are liars. I think they are both right.
      • SOS84, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2They are both liars. The problem here is that McCain's op-ed was full of half-truths and outright lies. Read it.
      • kayala, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3No, dear. Half-truths and outright lies are things that don't conform to the truth. I'd hope that most people of voting age would be intellectually mature enough to grasp that simple, simple concept.
  • Jonsblckhwk, on 07/24/2008, -6/+6http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/CBS_Busted_Viola ...

    CBS busted violating its own standards to help mccain... enjoy!
  • napk, on 07/24/2008, -6/+9House Republicans Fire Off Letter To New York Times, The World Yawns
  • brbubba, on 07/24/2008, -3/+5No one was complaining about bias during the primaries when all the candidates weren't getting equal air time. Now that the shoe is on the other foot they start complaining... damn hypocrites.
  • AgainstObama, on 07/24/2008, -17/+17Oh look, another anti-republican article on the front page.
    • Fallenshadow, on 07/24/2008, -8/+7people seem to not like republicans, go figure.
      • lajaw, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1This educated Conservative would like to correct you, you likely meant to use the word Neo-con, not Republican. The Neo-cons are you leftists' comrades. They just take a different tact to the same state control of everything.
    • wright3279, on 07/24/2008, -3/+4No the Obamites are very active on digg. Just like the Ron Paul people were.
      • lajaw, on 07/30/2008, -1/+1And we in this country would be better off if Ron Paul could be victorious. With the way things are at this time, we have a very bleak immediate future.
  • chrissku, on 07/24/2008, -7/+14Dear John McCain,

    Not unlike your campaign...your op-ed piece sucked. The truth hurts sometimes.
    • gerbil20, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1"The truth hurts sometimes"... which is why the rag dared not print it.
  • DiggasWAttitude, on 07/24/2008, -4/+15The NY Times is no doubt biased, but to say that McCain's rejection is proof of this doesn't fit with the facts. They've rejected pieces by Bill Clinton many times, as well as Hillary in the primaries. If McCain crapped on a piece of paper (which it appears is fairly close to what actually happened) and it got rejected people would be saying the same thing.
    • psiege, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2I think it's more about what they said when they rejected it: "write a piece more like Obama's". That sounds like bias to me.
      • kayala, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2More eloquent, wider in scope, closer to the truth of the matter... sounds quite reasonable to me. There's also a nice symmetry to a point/counterpoint in which both pieces have similar scopes but from antipodes.
    • dannydawg5, on 07/25/2008, -1/+0
      Yes, NYT is biased. Just about every major news outlet is biased, and most are somewhat liberal. Before you digg me down, here me out...

      The reason is quite simple: Where are most writers from? They are from Chicago, NYC, and other major cities. How do those places vote? They tend to vote Democrat. So writers from Dem-leaning places write with a Dem-leaning view! OMG!!! If you read newspapers from AL or MS, guess what kind of bias would you find there?

      BTW, I live in the South and have voted Dem ever since 2004. It didn't work then. Hopefully, this year it will.

  • JazzLR, on 07/24/2008, -16/+11The NYT is nearly as credible as the Huffington Post anymore. I find it amusing that the liberals whine about the Conservative domination of talk radio constantly yet they wish to call a mature and articulate manner of expressing an opinion, such as sending a supportive letter, an attempt to cry about being mistreated. Could the liberals act any less mature or childish? If they consider the NYT a source of news, they are even less educated than I give them credit for.
    • SOS84, on 07/24/2008, -6/+2Can Republican's lie any more? What a ***** (British definition).
    • wright3279, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Oppose any thing against Obama and you get dugg down very quickly on digg. As left wing as Move-on or Media Matters. Theu want to shut down any opposition and I'm afraid they will get their way soon.
    • cesig, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3Buried for childish, whiny use of 'liberal' as a pejorative.
  • wright3279, on 07/24/2008, -13/+7Liberals are all for fairness, but only when it benefits them! What arrogance!
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/24/2008, -2/+5Conservatives are all for fairness, but not when it helps liberals! What hypocrisy!

      The conservatives are the ones whining right now, sparky.
    • wright3279, on 07/24/2008, -4/+2Conservatives only have talk radio now, since the MSM is in Obama's corner. And when the Dems take over the White House as well as congress, that will be done away with also. But I guess that's OK with the libs.
    • cesig, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Buried for using 'liberal' as a pejorative. Grow up.
    • caramba420, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Why didn't the Times print MY full page op-ed? Because McCain is a "serious presidential candidate?" He is only a "serious presidential candidate" to begin with because the media has been so in love with him. Think about it. Why do you even know his name?
  • funkymoose, on 07/24/2008, -8/+11Good to see Digg supports unbiased news. Oh wait..

    Digg, while I love you for your tech/other news, you are the most politically bias place I have ever been to.
    • jack104, on 07/24/2008, -5/+3I AGREE SO MUCH i CAN'T EXPRESS IT IN WORDS.......GOD BLESS IT THERE IS ANOTHER SANE PERSON ON THIS PLANET.
      • FredFredrickson, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1Caps lock is cruise control for cool!
      • jack104, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1and being a smart ass is cruise control for being a dick hole.
    • emkaysmith, on 07/24/2008, -3/+3You're including yourself as "politically biased," I assume?
    • cesig, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3It is biased. But biased or not, that article wasn't good enough to publish in any newspaper. It added nothing. The editors even said that they'd publish an article that better defined McCain's positions on the issues.
    • FredFredrickson, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2Digg isn't biased, and neither are its users. They all have their own opinions about these things, and it seems that these opinions are often more liberal-minded than conservative. That's not bias, it's the collective opinion of a group.
      • jack104, on 07/25/2008, -0/+1a very small group, almost all of whom are left leaning, like you said. But the people who moderate this page have a duty to show the left dominated group both sides of the issue instead or force feeding everyone the same monotonous bull.
  • Andrwmorph, on 07/24/2008, -9/+5The New York Times is biased?

    LETS WRITE AN ANGRY LETTER!
  • AquaOSX, on 07/24/2008, -2/+8Me wonders if this article was intentionally awful, therefore forcing the Times not to publish it, and allowing the right to bitch about the "liberal media."
    • jack104, on 07/24/2008, -3/+2you can't be serious.....republicans aren't that smart, i can vouch for that one.
      • cesig, on 07/24/2008, -0/+3Buried for generalizing all republicans. This kind of political discourse is unhelpful.
      • jack104, on 07/25/2008, -0/+0It's called Sarcasm. One of the very few useful things I've ever gotten from The Daily Show.
    • cesig, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1I can't imagine they would do that and risk having an intentionally poorly-written op-ed piece being published and further tarnishing McCain's already shaky reputation.
      • jamesfaction, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2Actually i think it could be true. Read McCain's piece, it's exactly the piece of McBush chest-beating crap we've had for the last 8 years and I'm sure they know that. They would have loved to see it published, and now it's not they can throw their toys out of the stroller and have a good old whinge, which every other media outlet will dutifully pick up and run with. Win-win situation... sort-of. Except for the small detail that everyone's tired of their ***** and wants something else.
  • levelred, on 07/24/2008, -6/+5Let's write a letter to Fixed News..
  • thereisnostate, on 07/24/2008, -9/+5Obama and McCain are both shills for AIPAC and the neocons behind the scenes. They both get plenty of legacy media coverage for this very reason.
  • diemunkiesdie, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6Notice the CBS piece is cut off, there is no "after the jump" to see the text of the letter. The original blog piece is at http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/House_ ... (You can see that CBS got it from there at the top right of the page where they have a POLITICO logo.)

    If you go there you can see the letter that is being sent.
  • dmark77, on 07/24/2008, -5/+12The New York Times should be praised for standing up and fighting for their Freedom of the Press rights.
    • cesig, on 07/24/2008, -0/+1People complain the MSM is doing a ***** job of providing even coverage of the political landscape today yet also praise the freedom of the press to cover whatever they want (that is, whatever will benefit the station the most).

      Since the late 80's the press has been free to cover what they want. This is why so many people today think the MSM is total *****. There's nothing saying they have to provide balanced news, accurate news, or even any news at all.

      Complete freedom of a corporate-owned press is NOT a good thing for the country. It's only good for the corporate owners.
  • jack104, on 07/24/2008, -12/+4(times)We are a fair news agency, giving equal coverage to all. Because unlike those damn war mongering republicans at fox news, we believe everyone has an opinion and that all should get the opportunity to hear it and make their own decision...........except McCain's......we know his already. Yea Iraq war, another 50 years....drilling offshore....we get it McCain, this a newspaper....we print news....new news......not news 8 years old.

    People I don't care who you are, if you believe in fair, which you all should, then both pieces should have been printed. I don't care if the Times thought McCain's blew, it wasn't their decision, it was the piece that the McCain camp had decided on, the piece that they believed would best represent McCain to voters and the times had no right to say it was not up to snuff. If they we're smart liberals and the piece REALLY DID SUCK NUTS, then they should have printed it anyway and let NYC see what an ar tard McCain is. Sorry folks, this smells like a big pile of bull ***** to me.

    • cesig, on 07/24/2008, -2/+2Either you're for forced even-handedness a la the Fairness Doctrine, or you're for freedom of the press. The two are diametrically opposed.

      Personally, I think they should have published it, but there aren't any rules saying they have to act a specific way or provided balanced political coverage. Not anymore.
    • FredFredrickson, on 07/24/2008, -0/+4Or maybe McCain should have just answered the simple question they posed to him, instead of going off on Obama?
  • oscenester, on 07/24/2008, -1/+3The "News" has become a major for profit business.

    They don't care about news anymore. They care about what will sell the paper, or what will get people to watch.

    Hence the anti-obama, pro mcain -> pro-obama, anti-mccain flip flop.

    If you notice, they even build obama up for a few days, and then suddenly bash him just to get the flames whipping again.

    sad
  • swrostmore, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6Don't House Republicans have anything better to do? Shouldn't they be more worried about the economy or the war than whether a newspaper prints an op-ed or not?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.