…for a minute, anyway.  And only until I can get my head around all the chaos that’s going on.  To quote Vinnie Barbarino, “I’m so confused.”
How many more confusing things can happen in a week?  My head is almost spinn…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/inew-york-timesi-spares-m_n_114117.html

The Times long ago stopped being a good, objective newspaper.

The Boston Herald had it today in OpEd with a headline about the NYT rejection.

Rod on July 22, 2008 at 3:05 PM

Guess the Globe found it problematic as well :)

The only thing wrong with McCains Op Ed is its better than Obama’s.

We can’t expect a newspaper that gladly prints material that places our young men and women in harms way to be any different.

I agree. Like all print and broadcast media, the NY Times has the Freedom of the Press. However, in a Democracy, every right has a connected duty.

For the good of our democratic society, Freedom of the Press brings the duties of professional competence, honesty and objectivity. In refusing to print Senator McCain’s essay, the NY Times has failed in all these duties. The Times has thereby gone from using to abusing Freedom of Speech. Their political bias is blatantly shown.

As a writer who has received scores of rejection letters myself, I understand that most submissions to print media never see the light of day. That’s one reason the blogosphere exists. I’d disagree with Bolton on that point; freedom of expression does not include the right to have one’s words published in a newspaper. Shipley and the Times should not be forced (by the government) into printing something they do not want, and neither should anyone else.

Big picture: This is exactly why legacy media, particularly print media, is now doomed to fail… or at least become perhaps trivially boutique in their survival, mere little fishes in a bigger pond.

Clearly legitimate positions and responses are being and have been filtered ever since the medium was invented and provided immeasurable power to those behind the scenes committed to covering/pushing whatever point of view they preferred. It’s apparent that these institutions do not necessarily promote the “greater good,” that their editorial professionalism is contaminated with purposeful bias, so much so in some circumstances that it is clear propaganda.

While freedom of speech gives this institution the right to propagandize how it sees fit, modern technology in concert with cynical and increasingly sophisticated consumers of the medium can and will move to other venues whose production is more honest and transparent. Should those still be inadequate, some segment of those consumers will become producers of content… producers who won’t have to ask or beg for permission by the gatekeepers to produce a counterargument.

This (tech trumping deadwood), of course, is not a new revelation. What is new, however, is the rapidity with which we observe legacy media crumble – and crumbling at an increasing rate in response to the fraudulent industry we had been trained, if not hand tied, to trust.

The NYTimes ridiculous response represents an exclamation point to this developing truism.

Via Hot Air, the New York Post published the op-ed piece that the New York Times rejected from John McCain. The piece itself appears to have much the same approach as Barack Obama’s earlier op-ed but goes into greater detail than Obama’s while specif…

EDITORS’ NOTE: The New York Times wouldn’t print this oped from the GOP candidate.

Just want to say, this header right at the top of the Post op-ed – a big thumb in the eye to the NYT – tickles me NO end.

Blaise on July 22, 2008 at 1:28 PM

The Democrats have no issue with excluding Fox News. They excluded Fox News from the primary debates, they excluded Fox (Chris Wallace) from the media group following Obama’s Grand World Tour, and rest assured that if elected, Fox’s White House Press Corps. seat will be in the back next to the air conditioning duct.

Republicans should step the pressure up on the media, especially at NBC. The press don’t like being without access and might be willing to give some concessions if they see McCain as being willing and able to exclude them.

No, not for talk radio. For the pages of the New York Times. An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES — less than a week after the paper published an essay……

I’d disagree with Bolton on that point; freedom of expression does not include the right to have one’s words published in a newspaper.

The Great Stache did not argue that freedom of expression does not confer a “right” (i.e. something enforceable by the force of law) to have an opinion published in a newspaper. He was talking about a norm of fairness and impartiality and saying that if the NYT wants to consider itself a newspaper, it should not give its forum to one candidate and refuse it to another.

This might be a good time to resurrect that idea, however, insofar as the NY Times is concerned. The publicity around this Op Ed has outed them for everyone, not just those who floow such things in the blogosphere. It would be perfectly defensible to exclude the Times by saying that their coverage is so biased and one-sided that they are no longer a legitimate news carrier. if they want o cover the campaign, fine…get your own transportation. If they don’t…fine too, because there could be no possible loss to the McCain campaign caused by their absence.

Egfrow on July 22, 2008 at 1:12 PM

The NYT has been running promos with special discounts here in the Philadelphia market. The Gray Lady is turning a shade of pale.

The Philadelphia Inquirer has been taking a beating too, laying off hundreds this year.

In other words, McCain would have to adopt Obama’s policy of timetables and “pressure”, rather than focusing on cooperation and conditions on the ground.

Exactly. Shipley wants McCain’s respose to be in the Democratic language of defeat.