NY Times Blows It On McCain Op-Ed

“It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece” on the Iraq War, wrote New York Times op-ed page editor Michael Shipley in an email to the McCain campaign on Friday. Strangely enough, Shipley was writing to reject an opinion column already submitted by McCain; the piece, he explained, was not up to par with the column that the Times had run under Obama’s name on July 14. Where Obama’s op-ed “offered new information” and “went into detail about his own plans,” Shipley asserted, McCain’s did neither.

McCain partisans have decried the Times’s decision—and, if you read the two columns side by side, Shipley’s justification does seem rather thin. The similarities between Shipley’s words and an unsigned July 17th Times editorial denouncing McCain for not having “matched Mr. Obama’s seriousness on Iraq” suggest that the rejection is an expression of its heightening exasperation with the presumptive GOP nominee—not an adherence to general principles of newsworthiness. Failing to be straightforward about this was a mistake. Instead of making a statement about its judgment of McCain’s leadership—a judgment that it could defend on principle—the Times has only reinforced its reputation on the right as a biased liberal broadsheet.

It is unclear what detailed “plans” sounded new to the Times when it accepted Barack Obama’s July 14th submission. Presumably, Shipley had in mind the four paragraphs towards the bottom, in which Obama reiterated his commitment to a sixteen-month withdrawal timeline, adding that he would work with commanders to “redeploy troops safely” while retaining a small force for “limited missions,” pursue “a diplomatic offensive,” and shift brigades to Afghanistan. This was preceded by seven paragraphs laying out his criticisms of McCain and reminding readers that he had opposed the war since its beginning.

What, exactly, is new about that? To my eyes, Obama’s column was just a summary of positions on Iraq that he had already offered in various forms. And, with the exception of the sixteen-month time frame, its components are general principles for proceeding in Iraq, not something that could be reasonably considered to constitute a “detailed plan.” But in his email to the McCain campaign, Shipley was specific about what “details” he expected from the Arizona senator:

[T]he article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

Shipley’s request for a definition of “victory” echoes the Times’ July 17th editorial, which complains, “We have no idea what winning means to Mr. McCain.” Shipley’s detailed description of what the Times would consider a “detailed plan”—reminiscent of a teacher explaining to an elementary school student why his failed homework didn’t fulfill the assignment—underscores the editorial’s frustration that “Mr. McCain is still tied in knots, largely adopting Mr. Bush’s blind defense of an unending conflict.”

The whole point of McCain’s rejected op-ed, published Tuesday in the New York Post, is that he doesn’t think it is wise to offer the kind of Iraq statement that would satisfy the Times. McCain declares that “any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground—not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Sen. Obama.”

The Times editorial board is well within its rights to pronounce this position unacceptable. And the editor of the Op-Ed page has the right to decide what to publish and what to reject. But if the editorial board’s negative opinion of McCain’s approach to Iraq is indeed shared by the opinion pages, as Shipley’s note suggests, then the Times could have made a stronger statement—and been more honest—if it had simply said to McCain, “The Times does not consider your stay-the-course position serious, and we only publish serious arguments on our Op-Ed page.”

This would have undoubtedly provoked even louder howls from the right. But wouldn’t the Times rather be defending itself for taking a principled stand—instead of defending tenuous arguments about newsworthiness that serve only to feed the paper’s reputation as a vehicle for thinly veiled liberal bias?

This originally appeared at CJR.org, the website of the Columbia Journalism Review.

Comments

[TeenaGreena]

I read McCain's piece. I found it very annoying because instead of describing his plans for our country's future, he attacked Obama.

I am an independent, and this is one of the main reasons that modern republicans never get my vote.

[gevan]

The NYT might have been better served if they just ran the McCain statement with whatever complaint they had annexed below it.

[InofTouch]

Just Ask CBS for your answer

[rwt1138]

I think it was simpler than that: they simply protected McCain from himself. Drudge posted the whole piece, I've read it. It may play with the kind of people who read the Drudge Report or watch Fox News, but many NYT readers are actually informed. The McCain piece was worse than the childish policy drivel that Giuliani published in Foreign Affairs a few months back. At least I sent the Giuliani one out to people for laughs; the McCain screed was simply embarrassing for the Senator, in my opinion. His facts were all wrong, he misstated positions--not just Obama's, but, incredibly enough, even his own (if you go by previous statements) and, in what has to have been the biggest bullet he dodged by the NYT rejection, he declared that Obama's withdrawal plan was contrary to the wishes of the Iraqis--Just days before Maliki said Obama's plan sounded just about right.

[JennyJay]

Cut to the chase here - NYT wanted McCain to "define victory" in Iraq. And the old guy couldn't do it. All McCain knows is "war" . . . Bush put us in Iraq for Cheney/Halliburton, and McCain will keep us
in Iraq because he and his whole family are soldiers.. . . Wars are what they do, it is who they are.
The FIGHTING is the only thing that matters to McCain, that's why he can't define what victory is.

[MaeScott]

mcSame's Straight Talk express is losing steam...needs alternative fuel...
..switching to negative campaign mode.

ps- review the dem primary..see how that tactic worked...

[S1m0n]

"...reminiscent of a teacher explaining to an elementary school student why his failed homework didn"t fulfill the assignment."

Or like John McCain saying "I won't quit before victory, but I won't tell you what victory is."

[TchoupitoulasCanal]

Unfortunately, every media outlet, be it print or televison, has a 'preferred' candidate and will skew their presentation to most effectively place their candidate of choice in a better light.

The NY Times should be applauded if for no other reason than the fact that they were honest about what they did. I'd rather know what their biases are instead of being made to connect the dots so to speak.

[GHO]

"But wouldn"t the Times rather be defending itself for taking a principled stand"instead of defending tenuous arguments about newsworthiness that serve only to feed the paper"s reputation as a vehicle for thinly veiled liberal bias?"

Agreed - let's face it, they were going to get tarred either way for rejecting it. Better off to be doing so honestly rather than making up reasons. Fact is, as another poster already stated, they would have been best off to just run it. If it paled in comparison to Obama's piece, how does that hurt the NYT? All they did was cement their image as left wing idealogues and Obama's trumpet.

[Jezreel]

The NY Times saved John McCain from the embarrassment of having his name and reputation tarnished by the shoddy, insubstantive, attack ad he planned to disguise as an Op Ed piece. His article was nothing more than retaliation - a hit job- and not becoming a presidential candidate. McCain should be grateful to the NY Times for their refusal to join him in besmirching Obama and further diminishing his own credibility.

[MaeScott]

I agree with Jezreel. That op-ed piece of McCain' s was too sad and vindictive.

[rbenjamin]

The NY Times decision to spike the McCain piece was not arbitrary or unfair. Obama defined a clear objective (end direct US involvement in the war) and outlined plan to achieve it. McCain promised victory, but it was empty because he didn't or couldn't specify what end points would constitute a victory. Without clear objectives there is simply no way to evaluate the merits of his "plan." Not that McCain actually bothered to give one. His op-ed was a muddle-headed pep talk to stay the surge and support the troops. To top it off, he cherry-picked his supporting data (the GAO assessment is far gloomier than Congressional one). I'll be the first to admit that McCain had the more challenging task, but don't try a high degree of difficulty performance if you haven't got the chops. Johnny was judged and found wanting. The NY Times is under no obligation to print self-serving press releases. No exceptions for mavericks, seniors or ex-POWs. Am I the only one who thinks Johnny and his camp are getting a bit whiny?

[4President]

Listen, circular logic can be an effective way of manipulating the electorate. Now, I probably shouldn't be cluing you in on this, but you really need to make the circle larger. Events that are taking shape are quite simple to follow. We here in America are hurting, Iraqi's are benefiting from high oil prices and don't spend their own money to fix their own situation. We fundamentally disagree with this situation. Now, we understand George Bush and John McCain, their watching out for big oil. McCain, explaining his stance on drilling tells the townhall that Big Oil executives think they would get results if drilling were allowed in ANWAR. Get it? They'll see results. So will we, in twenty years when that oil is sold on the world's market and we are paying $10-$15 per gallon, those results will be riches for Big Oil.

Good luck!

[freshnotbitter]

McCain's position in '08 is the same as Nixon's in '68

[PrinceHal]

"Wouldn"t the Times rather be defending itself for taking a principled stand"instead of defending tenuous arguments about newsworthiness that serve only to feed the paper"s reputation as a vehicle for thinly veiled liberal bias?"

Oh, what the hell? The Times is already and always will be known to complaining righties as a vehicle for liberal bias -- and not the "thinly veiled" kind, either.

This is why I wonder more about the Times running columns by Bill Kristol and David Brooks, and publishing a Sunday Book Review section in which editor Sam Tanenhaus is forever hiring right-wing reviewers to knock down left-wing books.

These are a few of the dumb and totally unproductive ways in which the Times seeks to combat what it apparently can never knock down -- its lefty reputation. Which I wish it deserved a lot more than it actually does.

[Alterion]

I disagree with this article that there would be any justification for refusing to run McCain's article.

I disagree with the New York Times for refusing to run McCain's article - for ANY reason. He is the nominee for president I want to hear EVERYTHING that BOTH candidates have to say. This election is too important to let the media decide what is relevent. In lesser stories - its not such a big deal but this is a presidential election.

There's not a chance in heck I'm going to vote for McCain, but I defend his right to get his statement out there in full, so the people can make their own decisions.

[GLaB]

I couldn't agree more. It wasn't John McCain who was shut out by the NYT - it was their readers.

[pizzmoe]

True. The Times did McCain a favor by not printing it. It was embarrassing and incoherent and would have exposed this to the readers of the paper.

[cam]

Agreed.

[MPeter]

I don't see how they blew it. If anything, they gave him tips and an opportunity to write a better op-ed and avoid submitting a sub-grade essay against a far superior essay by Obama. They tried to save him the embarrassment but, the old guy saw a media opportunity to help his slaggish campaign and seized it. He has already received enough publicity from his poor op-ed than would have gotten from readers.