McCain’s Tiff With the Media Elite July 21
John McCain can’t catch a break from the New York Times these days. The Times rejected his recent equal time op-ed piece in response to an Obama piece run last week. There’s nothing particular noteworthy about that, media outlets rejecting equal time requests are common now that the old mandatory equal time rules have gone by the wayside. Besides, you could hardly call the NYT editorial board hardcore McCainiacs. But the reason given for the rejection was a little different.
Amongst several other demands, the NYT said that Mr. McCainiac’s article,”would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory - with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.”
What Does ‘Victory’ Mean Exactly
Obama’s article appeared to contain some of that information, but also seems short of that lofty goal. In fact, it’d be tough for any candidate to offer that much specificity on a very complex issue in a single op-ed article. Having said that, I’d sure like to see it - even in condensed form. We’re 7 years into this mess and nothing is any clearer than when we’d been there for 7 days. I’ve yet to hear the working definition of “victory” and no information about plans other than, “trust us, we know what we’re doing” - a hard position to argue when the administration continues to claim that any information will immediately allow the terrorists will “win”.
I can understand that newsprint isn’t cheap and that papers want their articles to be fresh and contain information people haven’t seen before. I can also see why they’d not like to have their prominent editorial page turned into a broadsheet campaign flyer. The Times says they often negotiate with op-ed contributors about what they will and won’t accept and they claim that’s the case here. On the other hand, campaigns understandably bristle at the restrictions and often use the opportunity to charge bias against a media outlet. It’s unclear if that’s the case here, although Team Walnuts hasn’t specifically charged that. The muck is further raked up when you look at the history between the two. The NYT endorsed McCain early on, but later was the first to break the story about McCain’s possibly overly close relationship with a female lobbyist. In other words, they have a love/hate thing goin’ on.
Now, both sides are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If the Times takes the position they have, the McCainiacs would have you believe they’re vicious, biased asshats who have it in for poor old John and the Obaminators would claim the Times was a bastion of fairness and toughness for demanding information that the entire population would probably like to see. Either way, things look bad for everybody.
Pootieheaded Embiciles
Me? I’m all about the free flow of ideas, although I accept that choosing op-ed pieces isn’t a fair process. Every editorial page has a position and that’s OK. In fact, the NYT probably is more supportive of Obama at this point, even if they’ve “officially” endorsed McCain in the past. I thought Obama’s piece was about as close as a paper can get to a balance between allowing the Big O to tout his ideas and preventing him from calling Bret Maverick a dangerous, pootieheaded, imbecile. That’s not the same as non-partisan, but it is what you can expect from candidates interested in advancing their ideas above all others.
If I were the NYT, I’d use the normal negotiations to squeeze as much new information as I could out of both candidates, but it would take a spectacularly uncooperative candidate to cause me to reject their article completely. It’s important for the process that everyone gets their say, even if I personally think it’s a Mr. McCain pie baked from fresh, fragrant road apples. I can’t say whether that’s happening here. I can completely believe that Mr. Cunt Trollope has it in him to be that uncooperative and I can also believe the NYT is bone-headed enough to make unreasonable demands. But either way, the McCainacs are far from being left stranded in the cold.
I they want to call Obama a Muslim terrorist, America hating, flag pin dissing traitor, I’m sure Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh would be delighted to air their point of view unedited and with plenty of supporting commentary.
The Poobah is a featured contributor at Bring It On!
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Gary D Jul 22
I liked this ironic dig: “The New York Times endorsed Senator McCain as the Republican candidate in the pesidential primaries. We take his views very seriously.”
Freida Bee Jul 22
Yes, that was about all I could think through my imagining McCain’s whining to the NYT, Obama doesn’t expect FOXNews to lean his way.
He really shouldn’t complain. If he wants to win the fundamentalist Christian vote of the south, being at odds with that hi-falootin’ cess-pool of sophistication is good press. That’s why he’ll complain and then not fulfill the NYT’s requests for more info, to stay at odds and appeal to both sides: seeming to want to be in the NYT’s favor for the liberal, and seeming to be at odds with the NYT’s for the fundies.
Freida Bee’s last blog post..One For U. Savage