SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (36193)7/23/2008 10:24:27 PM
From: puborectalis  Read Replies (1) of 224704
 
"Why the New York Times were right to reject John McCain's article
The New York Times has rejected a piece by Senator John McCain, having already run one by Barack Obama. And you know what? I think they may be right.

Here's how I would have dealt with the two articles if I had been been given them as Comment (OpEd) Editor here at what the Americans insist on calling the London Times.

First, having run an Obama piece on Iraq I would be keen on having a matching McCain piece. Keen but not desperate. Over time it is good to have balance, but it is not necessary to have tit for tat pieces every time.

Second, the job of a Comment Editor is to provide readers with an insight into the political debate. One is not part of the official machinery - required to provide space for rebuttal. If that was a requirement, President Bush would be able to commandeer half a page every day in order to reply to his critics.

So there is no absolute requirement for the NYT to run a McCain piece. Naturally, however, the Editor should want his readers to know what McCain thinks on such a big question. And this might be a good moment to have a piece by him. So why not run it?

Well, political pieces by elected officials or candidates can often be very boring - safe, unrevealing and tediously partisan. In general I required such pieces to jump over a pretty high importance barrier before I ran them.

Obama's piece vaulted that hurdle. It outlined his views, pretty much avoided point scoring, and dealt with the issue.

McCain's piece, on the other hand, knocked the hurdle over. It wasn't about Iraq. It was about Obama. If I received it I would have done exactly what the NYT did - send it back and ask them to redraft it so that it was about Iraq and was more, well, interesting.

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. "

timesonline.typepad.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext