Subscribe to Breaking NewsThe New York Times Is A Bit Tone Deaf
The folk who run the op/ed section of the New York Times need a primer in the art of public relations. Two presumptive nominees for the White House, questions and debates on how to manage a war. One nominee, Barack Obama, gets his piece on what to do with Iraq published. John McCain, who has foreign policy chops that Obama lacks, is told his submission on the same topic does not meet the standards of the the Old Gray Lady.
Yes it’s true the newspaper asked Senator McCain for a rewrite and even offered suggestions to add some punch to what the Arizona senator first sent in. Sure the op/ed editor makes clear he wants to have McCain published, but we are talking about a guy who is running to be leader of the free world not a nameless hack who is looking for a clip that will make him a household name (”Mr Withers? Your table is ready sir.”). By not publishing McCain’s essay, the New York Times simply played into the assumption the media is doing all it can to get the junior senator from Illinois elected. A much cleaner response would have been publication based on a couple of changes. By doing that, the New York Times would have saved itself from the bias memo being peddled by Republicans.
Oh please. About 43 percent of McCain’s sentences were about Obama (most of them pretty overt attacks) while only 11 percent of Obama’s sentences were about McCain. I applaud the Times for not resorting to publishing political attacks made by candidates.
Also, McCain is very lucky his article did not go to print. In it, he calls Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” announcement his worst mistake while president (and does so in order to compare Barak Obama’s decision to withdraw with this mistake). Frankly, I can think of a LOT worse mistakes. Although, maybe McCain has a selective memory towards Katrina. He was, afterall, partying it up with the president when the hurricane landed (check the White House photo pages).
Revamped site looks fine, but hire a wordsmith, please. From your NYT story:
“Two presumptive nominees for the White House, questions and debates on how to manage a war.”
This is a sentence?
re: Anyone Proofreading These?
Actually “Folk might be correct. “Folk”, “people” and “class” are singular nouns they represent multiple individuals. So saying “The peoples who run the op/ed section….” would be incorrect so would “The folks who run the op/ed section….” “Folks” might be more pleasant to the ear given that it’s misuse has been so wide spread; because of that it might have actually have become Standard American English. However, I am not grammarian but if one is out there please comment.
Mr. Witthers, you make a valid point by saying the Republican attack memo could have been avoided. However, the NY Times having the voice that it has, is able to respond by saying “We being a publication tolerant to all creeds welcome works from the complete political spectrum; so long as they meet our minimum publication standards. It is better for us to ask Sen. McCain for a rewrite then to publish his work having the qualities of a composition submitted my an Ivy League Legacy who’s dad paid for a new building before the legacy was accepted.”
“Thanks Dad!”
The man who didn’t know if condoms did anything to prevent HIV infection… was asked to revise? Shock! Horror! Left-Wing conspiracy.
Just what is being advocated here… letting things slide for the conservatives in the hopes that they won’t cry about the big bad liberal media wolf? Shameful.
Absolutely Shameful.
Dull your criticism and standards lest people accuse you of being on the attack, eh? For those whose convictions are founded in reason and not in mode, and for those who didn’t inherit their political affiliations with their sexual identity… what you are saying is shameful.
You are talking about appearances when what is important is the truth beyond appearances.
I fail to see much of a significant difference between this and the heteronormative-acting homosexuals who deride queers and sissies, promiscuous men and queens for being exactly what the right tries to scare people into thinking gays are.
Shameful.
“we are talking about a guy who is running to be leader of the free world”
HaHaHaHaHa!! When are you Americans FINALLY going to drop these silly pretentions???? Do you understand how retarded you sound to the rest of the “free world” when you state such foolishness, especially in the aftermaths of illegal wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, new found love for torture, and Gitmo? If you are “leading” the free world, then we are all screwed.
My editor friend had this to say:
“One things of the political stance of any particular media outlet, it’s got to be up to editors to decide what will be printed and what will not — I’m sure that the Times editor knew he’d be lambasted for his decision, but it’s his job to make that decision based on the content. Which, I’ll note, has already previously been said again and again by McCain. It’s a “news”paper. Not a place for anyone to just regurgitate the same stuff over and over. McCain wants to say something newsworthy, then it’s different.
McCain can put his comments on his Web site or the RNC site or use the Official Conservative Mouthpiece, Matt Drudge.
Editors reject or return for more work unsolicited copy all the time for all sorts of reasons. We don’t have any obligation to run stuff we didn’t ask people to write for us in the first place. For that matter, we don’t have any obligation to run the stuff we did ask them to write or that our staffs write. People outside of the newsrooms, or even inside, might not like it, but we do have some responsibility to have some standard for what we will and won’t print.”
Hate the new format. Difficult to read. Howver, glad that Jason et als. are finally giving us some real news, not all fluff about P-town and their dogs and gay Mardi Gras.
Dear Anyone,
Thanks for reading the post and making a comment; however, the mistake you noted was done on purpose.
Sincerely,
James Withers
You people really need to spend a little more time proofreading your articles before they’re published; even if they’re brought in from a feed.
The opening sentence beginning: “The folk who run the op/ed section of the New York Times need a primer in the art of public relations” should be: “The folkS who run….”
Seriously. I like the site, but you’d add a lot more credibility to your venture if you spent a little more time on the details.
I’m sorry, just because someone has been in the Senate for years and was a Viet Nam era POW doesn’t make them a forgein poicy expert. We’ve seen time and time again John McSame make huge mistakes in forgein policy and just mistakes in all things forgein. Obama has been dead on from the get go, and is, as we speak, looking and acting presidential on the world stage as he tours the Mid-East and Europe. Sorry, I agree with the NY Times. If McSame isn’t going to offer anything new to the dialoge or offer differences between himself and the current administration, why waste the Time’s valuble print space with a rehash of old outdated and incorrect theories. McSame, tell us how you are going to “win” this unwinnable war! Then they should and will publish your op-ed.
Since when did this website become the waterboy for the McSame campaign? Describing McBush as one “who has foreign policy chops that Obama lacks”? Please, if developments in the past week regarding Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq tell us anything, it’s that McSame’s 30 years in Washington have not bestowed good judgment in matters of foreign policy on him and that Senator Obama’s judgment has been right on the mark in each instance. There is absolutely nothing unusual about what the Times has done in relation to McSame’s piece and no doubt they remain willing to publish it if he is willing to edit it so that it is something more than a tired rehash of campaign talking points and attacks which we’ve all heard 1000 times. The McSame camp is well aware of this but wants to motivate its base by attacking the Times and create stories to divert attention from Senator Obama’s successful tour. It’s disappointing to see you fall for the bait.
Good point.
Just that McCain’s piece might been so ham-handed…
like so much of his whole campaign…
that they couldn’t…
publish it.
[all good - for us, us gay rags, that is...so to speak]
and why is this newsworthy to a gay audience? Stick to reporting news, and skip the commentary — we get enough of that everywhere else.
I’m sure the venerable NYT doesn’t need advice from a schlocky gay rag! Get back to the business of providing the fluffy gay news we all want…