Response to Why the New York Times Rejected John McCain's Op-Ed

Share This Story

By Annemarie Cairns, New York, New York

Comment on story http://newsblaze.com/story/20080722115013lill.nb/topstory.html

Perhaps the writer needs to refer to the comment by The Times of London, endorsing the New York Times decision. The London Times said that Obama's Op Ed was justified by the editorial and journalistic standards in place - - it gave his viewpoint, it gave specifics, it gave new information and outline the rationale for his policy, whereas McCain's said NOTHING about McCain's viewpoint or policy, but was all about Obama and criticizing Obama.

McCain does that every day in person, in every town hall address, on every TV interview. He doesn't need an Op Ed in The New York Times to embellish his daily whine. An Op Ed is what it is supposed to be…an Opinion Editorial not a campaign opponent bashing vehicle.

Understandably, McCain campaign is worried that John McCain, if he writes an editorial, will get all the geographic and historical facts about the American-Iraq engagement all wrong, as he appears to do every time he opens his mouth. But, unlike CBS, the New York Times would not help him by editing out his erroneous statements as Katie Couric did. In my opinion, McCain would risk more than he would gain by publishing an Op Ed in the Times. I read what he had submitted - - just another McCain, arm-waving rant with no journalistic or intellectual merit. I, too, would have turned it down.