What is Digg?246 Comments
- ModestMoby, on 07/24/2008, -8/+87Clinton got rejected a few times on NYT op-eds, too. And he's a good writer. So...maybe this has less to do with him being a Republican and more to do with his article just...you know...sucking?
- michaelpinto, on 07/24/2008, -24/+100Maybe instead they should act to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine"? Why should the New York Times need to be any more fair than Fox News?
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -4/+77Most media outlets are biased.
- nblsavage, on 07/23/2008, -58/+122Cry some more losers.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -3/+51Listening to the media nowadays is like asking a bunch of 2nd graders "Who ate the teacher's brownie?". Good luck finding the real truth.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -3/+48They can urge the paper to do whatever the hell they want...as long as freedom of the press exists...they don't have to do anything about it.
- Cheezo, on 07/24/2008, -18/+62a few more quarters of 82% loss and the ny times will be history
- Cancerkitty, on 07/24/2008, -2/+40I would think the New York Times would want to hold itself to a higher standard, but that's just me.
- AmyVernon, on 07/24/2008, -9/+42honestly, the NYT should have just taken it. if they published Obama's op-ed, they should have pubbed McCain's, if for no other reason than they had to have known this would happen. it's stupid. the opinion pages are supposed to be biased, that's their biz, but it's stupid to just keep one side from having its say...
- kingnothing1, on 07/24/2008, -1/+33I'm gonna have to agree with you there. People have automatically assumed that they rejected it just because he's a republican. Maybe it's because the content was poor or poorly written?
- infodoc1, on 07/24/2008, -4/+36Hey CBS, why don't you guys just write up an amazing essay and credit it to McCain.
- onyxcoltrane, on 07/24/2008, -10/+37If they had a liberal bias they would have done their job during the runup to the Iraq War and challenged the lies coming from the White House. They would not have bought into the neocon propaganda machine.
- antipoet, on 07/24/2008, -5/+23Here's the Obama piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama. ...
- neognostic, on 07/24/2008, -2/+20I read it in full, and I've seen better articles written by High School students. It's logic was severely flawed, it had numerous factual errors, and frankly didn't bring anything new to the table. Just a lot of whining about Obama this, Obama that.
- ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -7/+25NYTimes.com can't possibly influence the voting majority. Repubs want to counter-attack this media outlet w/ the very same tactic they're complaining about.
- peticsu, on 07/24/2008, -6/+23maybe if McCain was to go beyond the neanderthal win-lose, us or them, victory or defeat kind of mindset not only would they print him, more people would be prone to vote for him...
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -18/+35What the hell is New York Times? What the hell is Fox News? I know of only Digg and that's it. Who still buys newspapers or watches TV?
- drwaterside, on 07/24/2008, -3/+18i have switched from MSM to PBS and NPR for news. At least, they give me the facts instead of stupid partisan opinions
- onyxcoltrane, on 07/24/2008, -0/+14Without honest journalism you can kiss democracy goodbye for good. Digg and internet users depend on journalistic research from newspapers.
- relic180, on 07/24/2008, -8/+21Wow. You're kind of a ***** dick, huh.
- drlha, on 07/24/2008, -3/+15How about the NY Post then?
- DiggasWAttitude, on 07/24/2008, -3/+15The NY Times is no doubt biased, but to say that McCain's rejection is proof of this doesn't fit with the facts. They've rejected pieces by Bill Clinton many times, as well as Hillary in the primaries. If McCain crapped on a piece of paper (which it appears is fairly close to what actually happened) and it got rejected people would be saying the same thing.
- nblsavage, on 07/24/2008, -11/+22How about me throwing the same question at you...what would you be doing if Obama had been rejected. Either nothing or crowing about it. In my case, I'm smart enough to know that the paper can approve or reject anything it damn well pleases.
- wishninja, on 07/24/2008, -3/+14clear channel radio
- tcbishop12, on 07/24/2008, -6/+15I think the NY Times did McCain a favor by refusing to publish his vague and unconnected rant. But go ahead, GOP. Print it up so that everyone can see how effenn ignorant McCain really is.
- dcmjzero, on 07/24/2008, -9/+18my opinion wouldn't have changed in this case. mccain's op ed give no plans about what he would do. it just says obama is wrong. if it was a well-written piece with actual content, they might have run it.
- Greenpointer, on 07/24/2008, -14/+23Didn't they read the "No Whining" sign above the Capital Building door?
- nblsavage, on 07/24/2008, -0/+9For the first and probably last time I'll have to agree with you.
- MikeFallopian, on 07/24/2008, -4/+13The "Fairness Doctrine" is in complete opposition to the freedom of the press. There is nothing wrong with having biased media outlets - it is the responsibility of the people to choose to support respectable journalism.
- DigSomeMore, on 07/24/2008, -25/+34Wah wah...
- SirTheGuy, on 07/24/2008, -1/+9We need to flush the system and start over
- DisposableRob, on 07/24/2008, -4/+12It's odd that now the NYT demands fact-supported opinions in their paper when they continue to publish Bill Kristol.
- umbriago, on 07/24/2008, -8/+15Get your own newspaper, crooks (oh, wait, Wall Street Journal calling)
- mossrockss, on 07/24/2008, -7/+14It seems to me that they should let McCain write what he wants. If it's utter crap when compared to what Obama wrote, then that should speak for itself. NYT censoring him for any reason (other than if he like slandered the paper itself falsely, in which case it would be in their best interest not to publish it) is just going to further their image of a biased paper. Let the candidates speak for themselves and let the people decide who they prefer. the Times should not be an unfair gatekeeper - they should let the marketplace of ideas be their guiding principle, not the opinion of the editors.
- sindex, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6In related news, angry Americans fire off a letter to Capitol Hill formally "urging" the United States Government to allow a third party to take over the country. It was also denied. A lot.
- altgeeky1, on 07/24/2008, -4/+11It sucks when more people disagree with you than agree with you, but it's hardly unfair.
- wishninja, on 07/24/2008, -0/+7I agree as long as it is a free market like the internet. But these other markets are controlled by bigger media forces and heavy government influences. For example the FCC has made it imposable to start a private broadcasting company by all the mandates they have and they allow large companies to buy out dial space and not use it.
- chrissku, on 07/24/2008, -7/+13Dear John McCain,
Not unlike your campaign...your op-ed piece sucked. The truth hurts sometimes. - inactive, on 07/24/2008, -4/+10I'd take this news as an opportunity for the other parties beyond the two party dominion to give voice to the masses. Obviously the GOP has given permission to go outside the Pentagon's message management practices.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -5/+11The New York Times should be praised for standing up and fighting for their Freedom of the Press rights.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7@MacBigot
That is exactly right, as a matter of fact. Clinton isn't liberal, either. - BillOReilly08, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7Really glad our elected and paid representatives are using their time for such an important matter.
- pintomp3, on 07/24/2008, -1/+7there is very little journalism going on anywhere. real investigations cost money, upset the powers that be, and don't get the ratings local fluff pieces do.
- nathanbutnet, on 07/24/2008, -3/+8Sadly it is the bias (e.g. that the NYT is constantly liberal) that you express lecentre that Cheney, Rice and BushCo used to start the Iraq war meaning they banked on the fact that people would say to themselves 'Oh NYT is left leaning so what they are saying about Iraqi aluminum tubes must be right - they wouldn't let the right just pump them ***** to start a war.'
This is by way of saying that generally the NYT does seem to lean towards the left, but stay vigilant about any media outlets and don't fall into the trap of painting any large media outlet with one brush. - swrostmore, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5Don't House Republicans have anything better to do? Shouldn't they be more worried about the economy or the war than whether a newspaper prints an op-ed or not?
- Gorehog, on 07/24/2008, -4/+9You know, there used to be a law requiring equal time and fair representation. The Republicans got rid of it because it hindered their use of unlimited money to promote their candidates. They used that advantage all they could. Now they're in a position where nobody trusts them and no one wants to give them a voice. So now they CRY CRY CRY that their boy cant get his indecisive views posted? Cry me a river.
- Loonacy, on 07/24/2008, -1/+6We're doomed.
- AquaOSX, on 07/24/2008, -2/+7Me wonders if this article was intentionally awful, therefore forcing the Times not to publish it, and allowing the right to bitch about the "liberal media."
- jamesfaction, on 07/24/2008, -0/+5*sigh*. They asked McCain for a revision, they did not reject it outright. This is NOT an example of bias like everyone is trumpeting about. It's an example of quality control.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 247 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is