The NYT has refused to accept an 'Op-Ed' written by Sen. McCain ...

Hello Destiny, You're right, Destiny! McCain's Op-Ed does clearly state that the Iraqi needs pre-stipulate our troop withdrawal plans. This is a reasonable and very logical argument that the American People should consider before making their choice for President. The reason is that if we withdraw before the Iraqi's are fully equipped and trained to defend themselves from an invasion from an outside army, then we will have to go back in to help keep Iraq from being overtaken. It is clear as daylight to me that the Iraqi generals are saying just that. They have progresses nicely, with regard to dealing with the insurgency -- although they are not yet capable of defending from foreign attack. Which means that Iraq could not defend itself from an Iranian invasion. If one really reads McCain's submision, the primary difference between his and Sen. Obama's is that McCain focuses on Iraq's needs, and Obama focuses on what "I will do". This means that the basic difference is ego. McCain will adapt to the needs of our military and the Iraqi's ability to protect themselves from foreign insurgents, as well as an invading, foreign army. Meaning that McCain is saying that we need to make sure that the Iraqi's are fully equippped & trained, not partially so, before we move our soldiers from Iraq to Afghanistan. This last part is singly THE STUPIDEST THING THAT ANY POLITICIAN HAS SUGGESTED IN A VERY LONG TIME. Where I have previously explained why, I believe it bears repeating again. No for I would urge all to re-read Sen. McCain's submission. It absolutely DOES criticize Sen. Obama's "Plan for Iraq", because McCain thinks it's dangerous (and so do many, many others including both the US & Iraqi military leaders). Though, McCains submission clearly OUTLINES his goals and plans. It simply does so in a different writing style -- McCain's focus is 'what needs to be done to render Iraq independent and strong', and Obama's focuses on 'what I'll do to pacify the fatigue of war', whether it's wise or not. It seems to me that the NYT editor prefers the 'me, me, me', 'I, I, I' style over a simple presentation of what still needs to be accomplished.

Hello Destiny, Oops! It looks like I didn't copy over my whole response. "Where I have previously explained why, I believe it bears repeating again. No for" Uh duh, silly me!!! The rest of my response should read: No foreign ocupying or invading army has ever won in Afghanistan. Never! So the idea of prematurely moving our troops out of Iraq, where there is existing infrastructure to accomodate the Afghanistan Front in The War on Terror, is beyond STUPID. It is wholly counter-productive and very, very dangerous!!!

Yep.

Hello Red, Exactly! Campaigns are, by definition, designed out expose candidate differences. Could it realistically be possible that David Shipley doesn't know that? Or is this Shipley's way of deliberately trying to affect the outcome of the election? And, doesn't that constitute a violation of election law?

The old white guy thing was just my sarcasm Taskr. Thank you for agreeing with everything else. Thank you Lady for your flattering response, I love reading your wise responses, I learn a lot from you. I think Mona suits me better too and was thinking about taking my hat off, letting my hair down and getting back to myself again. I just found an article by Glen Beck about this subject. I haven't read it all yet but if I know Glen, it's real good. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/12718/

WOW! That was a really good link! I think that puts the whole media bias thing into perspective, and it is so realistically portrayed too. It almost made my leg tingle...

Timetables are foolish and show ignorance when dealing with something as uncertain as war. There are far too many variables to take into consideration. I'll assume your bit about them not printing McCain's because he's an old white guy is said in jest so I won't comment on it. Aside from that I pretty much agree with you. The media picks the candidates, and declares the front runners without really giving the American people enough information to make an educated choice. Sure, anyone with internet access can enlighten themselves and approach the election as educated voters, but most, despite the plethora of information, just let the media decide and latch on to whichever candidates the media tells them are front runners. That's why candidates who actually understand what it's like to struggle, and genuinely have ideas on how to change this country for the better, are ignored and silenced by news agencies in favor of those with the best gimmicks who can make the most exciting news stories. None of the "Non-Obama" candidates got fair treatment by the media during the primaries. I don't know why anyone would have expected that to change for the general election.

Of course they're a private organization and they can do what they want and call it fair if they want. Personally I see no reason to say it's not a stand alone piece. I consider that a cop-out and an excuse for not printing it. They want it to mirror Obama's and there's no way you can call it fair that they let Obama choose the method for which articles are to be written and submitted.

On a side note, they didn't want him to restate his views, they wanted his piece to "Mirror Obama's". That says that they only want their point of view in their paper. It was not a critique of Obama's piece, but rather a stand alone piece, that criticized Obama's position. Obama criticized both McCain and Bush in his piece, so aside from the obvious lack of fairness, I can't see any reason why McCain can't criticize Obama in the same fashion.

I think that it is totally fair for a newspaper to decide whether or not to run a piece. Especially since the piece in question does not stand alone as an article, it exists only as a critique of Obama's piece. Had McCain reworked the piece to simply state his views, I am sure it would have been run.

Hello Shoffman, What do I expect? I expect a fervent uproar from every American citizen. Because, if the NYT (or any major media outlet) will cross this line with someone who they previously favored for their 'maverick style', then there is no limit to their willingness to manipulate perception toward their desired goal. I also expect journalists who are true to their craft to stand in protest of this kind of unchecked fascism. What's more, I expect a full Federal Election Commission investigation. Where the NYT should be found in violation of Federal Election Commission law pertaining to the "equal time/equal format" statute. I expect for their to be an enormous fine -- because one of the few bastions of sincerity from the NYT is their sincere concern over falling profits, and their own job security. I imagine that those are enough expectations for right now? Though, I'm sure that other have their own expectations, and I welcome their input.

Hello Bugsey, Yes, I do remember. In fact, many are still steaming over just that. Namely Hillary's supporters. Though, many on the right won't soon forget their many grievances either. Good point!

Hello Gewcew, Thank you for bringing the Fairness Doctrine into this discussion, AND for pointing out the only one political pursuasion is efforting themselves to silence the other. It is only the Democrat Party that is pursuing this effort. The Republican Party wants only the letter of election law -- which is equal time in an equal setting. While I take a bit of humor at your resolution to the crossword puzzle dilemma, the fact that much of the rest of the world believes that the NYT is still the newspaper of record in the USA, should not be discounted. Tomorrow I will be posting a discussion about what Iraqi's believe about our election and the troop withdrawal. And, let's face it, they have a significant stake in our '08 elections. The convoluted stream of U.S. news that makes its way to the Iraqi people is being funnelled out of our national news wires, of which the NYT is a huge source. So, this isn't as simple a matter as Americans just blowing off the NYT. Though, Iraq is not our only international concern over this type of media bias. What about Iran, Syria, Russia, China, Venezuela, Korea, and elsewhere across the globe? The MSM, including the NYT is both driving AND staging our current election. Which, of course is driving the globe's reaction, including other nation's foreign policy postures.

Great points, Clrumfelt! Unless and until the Iraqi government is capable of defeating an invading, foreign military, like Iraq, then the US withdrawal will leave a vacuum. And, we all know that by nature a vacuum cannot remain void for long. It will fill itself up. Either the Dem. leadership and Sen. McCain are genuinely stupid, and the don't know about power vacuums. -or- they do know about the dangers of power vacuums -- and simply don't care!

Hello Keeperofthetruth, First, I'd like to welcome you to MyLot. I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your time here! Funny, I've also been under the impression that a newspaper that touts itself as the 'record of times' should be free of bias. Interesting how we've both been so misguided, huh? (Sarcasm is definitely ON). I don't believe that you are out of line to make the analogy to Germany under the Third Reich. Much like the IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency) today, or Pravda under Soviet control, there is an absolute need for fascists to silence the opposition. If one takes an honest, arduous look at the initiatives of the growing Socialist movement in this country, it's impossible to NOT see the fascist footprint. With banning this, and legislating against that, it's impossible to NOT see the scary reality of an emboldened Socialist infusion. Sadly, I suspect that the inertia of apathy will cause the masses to remain oblivious to how dangerous this NYT First Amendment denial really is. Though, if the shoe were on the other foot -- how loudly would the left be screaming???

Hello Cjgrooms, Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this. I certainly can't argue your points. Though, I am unwilling to take this lying down. As I've mentioned throughout my earlier responses, there is simply too much at stake.

Hello 1richgirl, Welcome to MyLot. I hope that you thoroughly enjoy your time here. And ... thank you for picking up on the FEC 'campaign finance' law question here!!!

amen- they should run every candidate!!

Ya! They should run an article by Bob Barr as well!

Hello Barb42, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this. I concur with your excellent points! Though, what's got me so riled is: By brazenly refusing an Op-Ed from McCain, David Shipley has inserted himself into yours and my role in deciding the course of the nation. We have long known that the media has disgustingly abandoned the journalistic ethic, but this latest move signals the tipping point between biased reporting and fascist control over content! Even through the cloudy perspective that the NYT bias has created, they always attempted to keep up the appearance of impartiality. Now, they're not even interested in keeping up the illusions. I cannot understate how fascist I find this deliberate action to be. And, to boldly claim that it would be better if McCain's opinion mirrored Obama's??? What??? So, the only way he's going to get his opinion published is if he abandons everything that he believes to mirror Obama????? This sounds like something that I would have expected from the USSR, not the USA!

"The "mirroring" comment blew my mind. I thought, why even write a piece, if you can't give your own opinions?" Exactly, Barb!!! I can't even believe how far over the line this is! What's really scary is this is how tyranny begins -- with the silencing of the opposition.

The "mirroring" comment blew my mind. I thought, why even write a piece, if you can't give your own opinions? If you have to share the same views in order to get published, don't fool with it. You are right; these people have put prejudice above truth getting out. They are sort of like a propaganda machine! If a reader is truly wanting to get to know the differences in these two candidates, they need not go to the New York Times because they won't find it. You find better information on blogs! This guy has forgotten his job is to report/publish the news, not try and proselytize others into his beliefs. But I am sure that isn't going to stop him. Apparently, he has made his candidate choice known by his decision to not publish that article by McCain.

Hello Soooobored, What you describe in your response is the making of a news article, or a press release. For either, the 'five W's': the who, what, when, where, how, and why are the 'meat' of the piece. Though, are you familiar with the parameters of the Editorial and Op-Ed columns of a newspaper? The editorial section features columns of opinion that are 'sanctioned' by the organization, in this case the NYT. The Op-Ed features non-'sanctioned' opinion from the general public. Never before in the history of U.S.A. journalism (that I'm aware of over the course of many, many years) has the editorial editor refused to print a cogent Op-Ed from a presidential candidate from either of the two major parties. Minor editing is quite common though, this complete refusal to accept such a submission is unprecendented! Taking into consideration that you are only 25 years old, I would urge you to peruse the archives of the NYT to review the long history of presidential candidate's Op-Ed submissions. You will rarely find the 'five W's' in such Op-Ed's, as the nature of the column is opinion.

Hello Soooobored, Why should an experienced Senator, a decorated military officer, who is running for the Office of the Presidency, and who has been featured in the NYT more times than I care to count, have to mirror a man with no experience in matters of war or foreign policy -- in the Op-Ed section of a newspaper? Do you not see the folly in this suggestion?

Regardless of my age, McCain's piece was not an appropriate submission. The only thing standing in his way to getting his message in the NY Times is his unwillingness to rework it to mirror Obama's style. With the five W's if you like! :-)

Hello MntlWard, I'd say that Matt Drudge did a fine job of presenting both sides of the story. In fact, I replied to an earlier response by stating: "It seems to me that the NYT editor prefers the 'me, me, me', 'I, I, I' style over a simple presentation of what still needs to be accomplished." I've also pointed out elsewhere that while basic editing is common in Op-Ed's, telling a presidential candidate that they should mirror the style of their opponent is unprecedented. If Sen. McCain is not a "me, me, me", "I, I, I" kind of candidate, then why should he have to fein so, to get his OPINION published in the NYT??? Do you not see how ludicrous this suggestion is? How would you react if your girlfriend or wife told you that you should kiss her the way her ex-boyfriend used to kiss her???

Sorry Kennyrose! I was readying to extract an excerpt out of your response, when I unintentionally hit 'enter'. Anyway, one intriguing point that I wanted to explore is: "Obama's black race complains about their great-great grandparents being in human bondage to the white man,now I see big brother Barack want to put his race in to another human bondage called mation wide community service." Hmmm, this raises an interesting question. Will the 90% of America's Blacks who support Obama's electoral run also support these heavy-handed government programs? And, with the same enthusiasm? My instinct screams NO! Though, it's difficult to predict, because it's impossible to know how much of Obama's proposals people are really hearing, and how much is being carried away on the wings of change.

The New York Times isn't John McCain's girlfriend. Do you think the NYT publishes every submission they get? Most articles wouldn't even be considered and would be returned with a form letter of rejection. The ones they do consider go through a process which sometimes involves the piece being sent back to the writer with advice for what changes need to be made for the paper to print it.

Hello Lightningd, I see that you read the article, thank you. Though, make no mistake -- it is NOT the role of the New York Times to shape the presidential debate. Who in the heLL does David Shipley think he is??? The role of the journalism is to report, letting the reader, and in this case the voter decide. If David Shipley is not immediately terminated, the the NYT can kiss its reputation goodbye. This is simply the most brazen, despicable act of media bias that I can remember in a very, very long time. I challenge anyone to provide a prior example where the NYT has refused to accept a well-penned Op-Ed from a major presidential candidate before -- EVER!!!

The problem as I saw it was that in the way McCain wrote it, it appeared to be more of a "Obama is doing this wrong, his plan is wrong, he voted this way, he doesn't support this or that".... I guess what I'm saying is that rather than say, "OK, this is the problem, and while Obama said this, I would do this", all McCain did was point fingers without offering any solutions.... If he had written it in more of a way that offered solutions rather than just what appeared to be a list of complaints against Obama, I think the NYT would have gladly printed it. (And I believe they said as much)

By the way, by "mirroring" I believe they meant offering solutions rather than just a commentary on how McCain believes Obama is wrong or has unrealistic expectations.