Arizona Senator John McCain (official)

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by Steve19

Impartiality should be a hallmark of the American press. Sadly, it appears to be sorely lacking in so many outlets these days. And we are all worse off for it.

Steve, I'd suggest you re-read the newspapers of the 1950s, 1920s, 1850s, and heck -- even 1790s. Impartiality has never been a characteristic of newspapers (the press). Nothing new here.

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

Steve, I'd suggest you re-read the newspapers of the 1950s, 1920s, 1850s, and heck -- even 1790s. Impartiality has never been a characteristic of newspapers (the press). Nothing new here.

The one difference between then and now is that they didn't try to claim impartiality.

I personally don't have a problem with a biased press. I get bugged when they try to deny it.

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

The one difference between then and now is that they didn't try to claim impartiality.

I think that is incorrect.

Originally Posted by bg

I personally don't have a problem with a biased press. I get bugged when they try to deny it.

Like "Fair and Balanced"?

I am surprised how many people out here are surprised that an editorial section made an editorial decision. Every major newspaper strongly editorializes their op-ed sections, and every one of them makes decisions effectively doing exactly what the NYT's did. One of the best newspapers in the world - the Economist - randomly interjects editorials into their news stories (by saying "This newspaper...") and unapologetically favors open markets, etc. The only difference is that the McCain op-ed is very high-profile relative to the many other editorial cuts that editors make at every newspaper.

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

I think that is incorrect.

Examples or references?

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

Examples or references?

I don't think that that today's newspapers claim impartiality when editorializing. Does this really require an example? Ok, when a newspaper endorses a candidate, a bill or an idea in its editorial section, they express bias.

Can you prove that today's newspapers do claim to be impartial?

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

The NYT only publishes op-eds they agree with.

This might be taken to mean that the NYT agrees with William Kristol, and David Brooks at the same time that it embraces the views of Frank Rich and Thomas Friedman.

I'm fairly certain that isn't what you intended to convey - but the fact remains that all four above listed commentators provide Op-Ed content to the Times. Thus, I would conclude that the NYT meant what they said. That the refusal to print the piece was because they wanted something from McCain's staff that, like Obama's essay, provided a positive exposition of the candidate's positions - not just a critique of his opponent's position.

Seems to me that would be an entirely reasonable request that a skilled writer could knock out in an afternoon.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by 'BusNative

Can you prove that today's newspapers do claim to be impartial?

These guys make a similar claim - though not in Print.

My point being that claiming impartiality is quite different from practicing impartiality.

Oh, and as for newspapers explicitly claiming - or aspiring to - impartiality, McClatchy Group makes that claim.

['BusNative]

Originally Posted by sandgk

These guys make a similar claim - though not in Print.

My point being that claiming impartiality is quite different from practicing impartiality.

Oh, and as for newspapers explicitly claiming - or aspiring to - impartiality, McClatchy Group makes that claim.

I actually meant editorial departments specifically.

FOX is clearly disingenuous though.

[CookyPuss]

Finally, some accurate reporting on McCain's comments about the surge:

Matthew Yglesias (July 22, 2008) - McCain's Surge of Time Travel (Foreign Policy)

Here's John McCain talking to Katie Couric and explaining -- but with his facts all wrong -- why the Anbar Awakening counts as a consequence of the surge:

Colonel McFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history. Thanks to General Petraeus, our leadership, and the sacrifice of brave young Americans. I mean, to deny that their sacrifice didn't make possible the success of the surge in Iraq, I think, does a great disservice to young men and women who are serving and have sacrificed.

Spencer Ackerman asks the press corps to recognize that "this is completely [censored]ing wrong" and points to then-Colonel, now-General Sean MacFarland explaining the origins of the awakening to UPI's Pam Hess on September 29, 2006. That was a bit over a month before the midterm elections. The surge wasn't announced until after the elections and wasn't actually implemented until long after MacFarland gave the interview. And presumably the events he was describing happened before the interview itself.

This specific timing issue aside, we can see here the larger point that McCain doesn't actually seem to know what the surge was. But the surge troops were overwhelmingly sent to increase the level of manpower in Baghdad (i.e., not where the Anbar Awakening happened) and almost certainly (along with a tactical shift to more of a population protection mission) deserves credit for reducing the bloodshed in Baghdad by stabilizing the borders between now-segregated neighborhoods. I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that it had nothing to do what happened in Anbar, but it wasn't a major factor, and certainly didn't make anything happen in September 2006. I note that this isn't the first time the right has had occasion to appeal to Michael Dummett's theory of backward causation in their discussion of Iraq.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

Steve, I'd suggest you re-read the newspapers of the 1950s, 1920s, 1850s, and heck -- even 1790s. Impartiality has never been a characteristic of newspapers (the press). Nothing new here.

Damn. Steve's old.

[CookyPuss]

More on why McCain's yammering about the surge is completely misleading:

Spencer Ackerman has some veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan on the record against the McCain campaign's sleazy new slanders against Barack Obama. It was while over there that I saw this truly stunning post from McCain campaign blogger Michael Goldfarb in which he tries to argue that to point out that McCain doesn't know when the Anbar Awakening happened is per se to attack the troops.


But to be as clear as possible, there were American soldiers serving in Iraq for years long before the surge began. To observe that something or other (say, the Anbar Awakening) couldn't possibly have happened because of the surge (because it happened before the surge) is by no means an effort to "deny American troops credit" for their work. The very Colonel (now General) McFarlane whose work McCain was citing as evidence of the success of the surge really did do good work, as did the men under his command. It's just that their work didn't have anything to do with the surge. Which is what Barack Obama was saying. And it's what John McCain was ignorantly denying.


Now the irony here is that the origins of this whole farce is McCain's efforts to hog credit himself for the adoption of improved counterinsurgency tactics. He "knows how to win wars," remember, and the evidence for that is supposed to be his embrace of the surge. But he can't even get basic facts straight.

These days McCain seems to be running on the surge and nothing but the surge. He's calling for one in Afghanistan. I'm waiting for him to go into the following riff in his stump speech:

We need a surge on terrorism!
We need a surge on oil prices!
We need a surge on the economy!
We need a surge on tax cuts!
We need a surge on health care!
We need a surge on pork and earmarks!
We need a surge on Iran! Ah, screw Iran, just bomb them!

[Flocka]

Originally Posted by MuckFich06

More on why McCain's yammering about the surge is completely misleading:



These days McCain seems to be running on the surge and nothing but the surge. He's calling for one in Afghanistan. I'm waiting for him to go into the following riff in his stump speech:

We need a surge on terrorism!
We need a surge on oil prices!
We need a surge on the economy!
We need a surge on tax cuts!
We need a surge on health care!
We need a surge on pork and earmarks!
We need a surge on Iran! Ah, screw Iran, just bomb them!

Yeah, he should start rambling about change.

[Gatorubet]

Originally Posted by bigballin2987

Yeah, he should start rambling about change.

Flouride in the water. Communists.

That's the kind of platform that made America great. Now? No passion.

[Flocka]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

That's the kind of platform that made America great. Now? No passion.

Well, the Democrats whined about change and got it in the Senate. Now we have all time low approval ratings in the Senate. Excuse me if I'm not passionate.

[Steve19]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

Damn. Steve's old.

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

Steve, I'd suggest you re-read the newspapers of the 1950s, 1920s, 1850s, and heck -- even 1790s. Impartiality has never been a characteristic of newspapers (the press). Nothing new here.

Originally Posted by bigballin2987

Excuse me if I'm not passionate.

How you doin'