Old news now, but with the mainscream media on their groupie tour with Barack Obama, The New York Times (“the Gray Lady,” “the Paper of Record,” “the Sinkhole that’s Bleeding Money Almost Daily”) publishes an editorial from Obama, but rejects a rebuttal editorial from John McCain, suggesting that it wasn’t constructive enough, wanting one that “mirrored” Obama’s views.
A rebuttal doesn’t have to “mirror” anything, if I remember from my high school debate class a couple centuries ago. It states counterpoints to what was asserted. McCain’s op-ed does that.
Brent Bozell, President of the Media Research Center, states in his column on Newsbusters, that this is only another forked stick the paper has tried to jab at John McCain:
The New York Times is out of control. On a regular basis, the news department makes headlines for outrageously biased non-news, such as the incredibly scummy story in February alleging that McCain had a sexual relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman despite the paper’s utter lack of proof. Even their advertising department has gotten into the act. Recall how they made a sweetheart deal with MoveOn.org to slam Gen. David Petraeus as “General Betray Us.” Now it’s the op-ed department, refusing to give McCain the opportunity to respond to Obama because they don’t like the response, period.
Obvious question begging to be asked: What if a paper ran McCain’s op-ed and rejected Obama’s? Honest answers only, please.
UPDATE: More insight from The Anchoress.