Home About Chat Users Issues Party Candidates Polling Firms Media News Polls Calendar Key Races United States President Senate House Governors International

New User Account
"A comprehensive, collaborative elections resource." 
Email: Password:

  Why the New York Times were right to reject John McCain's article
NEWS DETAILS
Parent(s) Candidate 
ContributorBob 
Last EditedBob  Jul 25, 2008 12:00pm
Logged 0
CategoryEditorial
News DateFriday, July 25, 2008 05:00:00 PM UTC0:0
DescriptionThe 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.
Share
ArticleRead Full Article

NEWS
Date Category Headline Article Contributor

DISCUSSION