Jump to content

Is the NY Times Liberally Biased


Recommended Posts

Well I've always felt the answer is yes, others will disagree, but that doesn't really bother me. :noclue:

It is strange that the NYT would choose not to print a direct rebuttal to an earlier editorial from 2 presidential candidates. Is the paper so chock full of goodness half a page could not be found? This is probably one of those times where the perceived injustice is a bigger positive than having the event go off without a hitch. Honestly, who would have cared about McCain's editorial? Nobody. McCain possibly being slighted by a possibly liberal news source is a good way to help his conservative cred. though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not defending the Times here, if they wanted the same points covered by the two candidates so that people could directly compare and contrast them, then they should have done something other than give them the vague assignment of write an Op-Ed about 'Iraq' which is apparently what they did. They should have said, we want these particular points covered, we want you to talk about your plan for this, not just what you don't like about your opponent. First, discuss your ideas about these key points and any others you feel are relevant and then directly contrast what your opponent has said about these matters. They didn't do that, they basically failed when giving the assignment.

They have told McCain that he can re-submit based on the 'same format' idea but they told him to add something which I'm not sure he'd want to add, which is an absolute statement on what he considers to be 'victory' in Iraq. No candidate is going to do that, even one who has said that he doesn't want the tropps home until we can say that there is victory. First, you don't know that what is happening today is what will be happening 6 months, a year or more from now. Second, I suspect that any real declaration of victory would encompass something that he couldn't talk about and was never even thought about before the invasion, the former presence of Iraq as a containing force against Iran, which will not ever happen with the current Iraqi government.

You'll notice that Obama has left himself an out regarding his withdrawal timetable (I believe we all knew this was coming months ago when Samantha Power gave that interview to the BBC which basically said that the 16th months was completely dependent on what was actually going on in Iraq). McCain says Obama hasn't still left himself the out (he says Obama won't listen to the generals and will just go ahead) but actually, many people on the left are really pissed that Obama has even talked about anything other than a firm, 16 month timeline to get out. In fact, they'd prefer something shorter. Therefore, I'm not sure why McCain should state unequivicably what he means by 'victory' and box himself into a corner...but apparently that's what the Times requires.

I've said before that neither one of these candidates thrills me...and the coverage hasn't exactly been awe-inspiring, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno Sue. If you are going to say that you are for "victory" in Iraq and your opponent is for "losing" I think you have an obligation to either define victory in real, tangible terms or stop using the phrase.

After reading it I can see why the Times rejected it. Obama's was filled with actual content and actual plans. McCain's was more broad crap and really just shots at Obama. The Times doesn't print screeds from the nutters on 42nd St and what McCain wrote was just slightly above their rantings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno Sue. If you are going to say that you are for "victory" in Iraq and your opponent is for "losing" I think you have an obligation to either define victory in real, tangible terms or stop using the phrase.

After reading it I can see why the Times rejected it. Obama's was filled with actual content and actual plans. McCain's was more broad crap and really just shots at Obama. The Times doesn't print screeds from the nutters on 42nd St and what McCain wrote was just slightly above their rantings.

That's the Times' failure to define the assignment, as I pointed out, Petey. Sorry, but it is. They set no actual content requirements other than the topic. The fact that they decided to come back and set some after reading Obama's piece means they had some in mind...which is what they should have said in the first place. And, if they want McCain to define victory, then Obama can never, ever waver on the 16 months. No matter what happens. But, that's not what happens, and you have to know that.

I have no love for either of these guys. I think the Times did a horrible job in setting out what they were looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there initially were guidelines until McCain showed that he needed them. That's fine with me. 16 months, IMHO, is too long. McCain doesn't have to do anything, but every time he declares he is for "victory" and Obama is for "losing" without defining the term of "victory" ("losing is conveniently defined as whatever Obama's plan is) it makes him look silly. It's a weasel word, nothing more.

That's the Times' failure to define the assignment, as I pointed out, Petey. Sorry, but it is. They set no actual content requirements other than the topic. The fact that they decided to come back and set some after reading Obama's piece means they had some in mind...which is what they should have said in the first place. And, if they want McCain to define victory, then Obama can never, ever waver on the 16 months. No matter what happens. But, that's not what happens, and you have to know that.

I have no love for either of these guys. I think the Times did a horrible job in setting out what they were looking for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PeteyNice:

"After reading it I can see why the Times rejected it. Obama's was filled with actual content and actual plans. McCain's was more broad crap and really just shots at Obama. The Times doesn't print screeds from the nutters on 42nd St and what McCain wrote was just slightly above their rantings."

LOL, FleetyNice you read like the NYT's with no concrete examples and just pure sh^t rhetoric:

"Obama's was filled with actual content and actual plans."

Please site some examples about Obama's actual plans.. interested to see what you come up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a link to it (you may need a NY Times acct blah blah blah):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

...

We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months.

...

We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

...

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

That was easy.

Edited by PeteyNice
Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a link to it (you may need a NY Times acct blah blah blah):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

That was easy.

"We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months."

How?

"We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama voted against funds for the troops.

At various points, so has McCain. Each candidate/party has a reason for voting as they do. Obama voted against a bill funding troops because it lacked a timetable for withdrawal; McCain voted against a bill funding troops because it included a timetable for withdrawal. Both have voted for and against troop-supporting bills in their time in the Senate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
At various points, so has McCain. Each candidate/party has a reason for voting as they do. Obama voted against a bill funding troops because it lacked a timetable for withdrawal; McCain voted against a bill funding troops because it included a timetable for withdrawal. Both have voted for and against troop-supporting bills in their time in the Senate.

If true, then McCain voted so as to not ensure defeat.

Obama voted to ensure defeat.

Big difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If true, then McCain voted so as to not ensure defeat.

Obama voted to ensure defeat.

Big difference.

With all due respect, doesn't that depend on your perspective? For example - and I do not speak for either candidates, this is a hypothetical - if Obama believed that not setting a timetable was a defeatist strategy in that it will cost hundreds of American lives and billions of American dollars, then isn't he adhering to his personal beliefs about what is best for the situation? Similarly, if McCain believed that setting a timetable was a defeatist strategy because it will prematurely withdraw a stabilizing American presence and possibly lead to a collapse of Iraq's fledgling government, then he's doing what he believes is best.

Here's the House measure in question, HR 1591.

Summary of votes: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00126

Overview of legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1591:

President Bush later vetoed the bill, citing its call for a timetable of troop withdrawal. Now this went back to vote in the Senate and the second time around McCain did not vote. Obama voted in favor of it both times.

I also seem to recall reports that McCain voted against legislation that would provide additional funding for Veterans, but that was years ago and to be honest I'd have to dig around a bit, if anyone's interested. Plus didn't he vote in favor of a bill appropriating additional funds to Veterans in May? I think Obama voted "nay" on that one, again with the sticking point of the timetable.

(edit: clarified the order of passage/veto)

Edited by insanity_gallops
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we've had at least three consecutive objectives in Iraq.

Victory #! We established that there are no WMD

Victory #2 Saddam Hussein is no longer running the place

Victory #3 Iraq has a popularly elected government

Why aren't we getting out now? If Iraqis are killing each other. so what, isn't that their problem?

We don't bring NATO troops into Newark, do we?

How many different "victories" are we gunning for (so to speak)?

Are we looking to annex Iraq as the 52nd state?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why was I only able to say I "think" they "may" be right? Because I don't know exactly what they asked the Senator's staff to do to the piece. But if they simply asked for a piece that matched Obama's because, like Obama's it was actually about his views on Iraq, well then I am right behind them.

I believe they only asked both candidates for pieces on Iraq, nothing more specific than that, correct? So then even this guy wouldn't support not airing the piece.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe they only asked both candidates for pieces on Iraq, nothing more specific than that, correct? So then even this guy wouldn't support not airing the piece.

Because he is a moron :noclue:

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...301702713742569

Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

The New York Times' refusal to publish John McCain's rebuttal to Barack Obama's Iraq op-ed may be the most glaring example of liberal media bias this journalist has ever seen. But true proof of widespread media bias requires one to follow an old journalism maxim: Follow the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.