Posted by
Bill Crawford on Friday, July 25, 2008 11:32:45 AM
As is usual in twentieth century history, a Presidential candidate from one of the two major parties submitted an op-ed piece to a major newspaper and had it printed the next day.
The other party's candidate submitted a response to the same paper and the editor, David Shipley, returned it for correction, like a deficient high school English composition. Please make it so "it mirrors Obama's"? What could have been wrong? No policy statements? It contained overt criticism of the opponent? Both pieces were littered with policy AND criticism.
Welcome to the new world. For those of you who are curious about the history of all this, feel free to reference my blog here from a few months ago, "Media Bias...Normal" (Feb. 1st). It doesn't change anything. The NY Times does not simply take sides with it's editorial page. It takes sides with it's news policy. It takes sides with it's page one, top-of-the-fold articles, news placement and pictures.
The Times is a liberal rag. It used to be a great paper that had a liberal bend in the editorial section. This is not a new thing. The gritted teeth that Republicans talk through when referring to the Times could be found in the New Dealers talking about the Chicago Tribune in 1940.
The new part of it all is the shakeout in televison and radio we are going through now, going from a handful of stations in both spectrums to hundreds on satellite radio and the internet. A handful means everybody is watching you maintain your objective responsibility. Hundreds means you can say whatever the hell you want and if people don't like it, there are plenty of places to go.
McCain shouldn't take this personally. He is just a victim of the new paradigm.