Media Bias: New York Times Refuses To Run John McCain Article

Cross posted from Assoluta Tranquillita. HT to Spree at Wake Up America.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Drudge is reporting that the New York Times is refusing to run an article about Iraq written by John McCain, to counter the article they willingly ran for Barack Obama.

In a previous piece we showed how a plurality of Americans believe that reporters and the media are trying to actively help Barack Obama win the November elections.

The New York Times has just proven they are one of these outlets that America believes this about.

According to an email that NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley sent the McCain campaign, he states, "It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq."

So begins a post up on Wake Up America. None of us are ever surprised at the bias shown by the msm towards all matters relating to our troops, but this one is so blatant. However, never fear, the blogs are on it. The NY Times may not want the public to know what Senator McCain has written, but Wake Up America (and others) are printing it for wide circulation. Just as the NY Times is quite within their rights to decide what they will not print, so are we bloggers within our rights to choose what we WILL print.

Senator McCain's piece begins:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

Courtesy of Drudge Report, via Wake Up America, you can read
the whole thing here. Check it out.

WE don't need the NY Times.