Apparently the backlash from their first article attacking McCain didn't stop them from questioning whether he actually is eligible from being President.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=2&ei=5090...
The question the article raises is does the child of a military member on orders who's born on a military installation overseas get to be considered a "natural-born" citizen?
I think the NY Times should tread lightly for a few weeks and would have been better having left this piece on the shelf until the anger from their last article attacking McCain passes over.
I think the NY Times should tread lightly for a few weeks and would have been better having left this piece on the shelf until the anger from their last article attacking McCain passes over.
They should "tread lightly" because they might upset McCain? What about the free press?
Chris I said "tread lightly" as you noted. I did not say stop nor did I say be stopped. In fact if you reread it I suggest they just wait a few weeks.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics...
This shows that the Times has some problems with the public's view of them. And they are a public business. So my comments on tread lightly was a suggestion considering the backlash they received.
MikeyA
If you talk to media types, a "chilling effect" can be just as damaging to a free press as a First Amendment violation.
And they are a public business
Publicly traded maybe, but not supported by tax dollars (like broadcast licenses are). As such, if people don't like what they write they are free to buy another newspaper...or sell their stock in the Times.
"As such, if people don't like what they write they are free to buy another newspaper...or sell their stock in the Times" This is what I meant by public business. They produce a product that is open to the public and intended for mass appeal. As the poll I referenced shows you won't do well with only 24% approving of your business unless you only gear to them.
"If you talk to media types, a "chilling effect" can be just as damaging to a free press as a First Amendment violation." I wasn't saying they should bury or not print the story. I suggested they hold off for a few weeks on it. By running it now they are doing a follow up attack which already did the Times harm.
There are times where you can run negative story after negative story without backlash (See the bland with Noe and Kest). But when the public doesn't agree you're better off to refocus somewhere else for a while.
MikeyA
Yeah, the NYT should lay off the corrupt Keating Five senator who is known to have cheated on his first wife numerous times and most likely cheated on his wealthier second wife. He's such an honest, straight talkin' maverick, he can't even avoid breaking his own campaign finance law. If the right wing noise machine can question Obama's roots, McCain's are fair game as well.
"corrupt Keating Five senator who is known to have cheated on his first wife numerous times" You know I've read many things of his and he does not run from either. He notes that his relationship with the regulators gave the appearance of wrongdoing. Also he acknowledges his infidelities with his first wife.
McCain has never tried to portray himself as a bible thumping values politician. He acknowledges his faults and mistakes and says he's learned from them. That's honorable.
I'm not saying the attacks against Obama are ok. I've never condoned that. So please don't insinuate that I do or have.
What is significant about the attacks Obama has endured from the conservative radio and McCain's attacks from the Times is that conservative radio doesn't operate under the banner of objectivity. The Times does.
But if you notice from my post I didn't say the attack was unfair, unwarranted, and deserving of censorship. I said they would be well advised to tread lightly.
MikeyA
All three presidential candidates are horrible. I'm going to accumulate more wealth and wait this out.
Yes, I can see how vacationing with Keating and having Keating pick up the tab on numerous occasions could just give the appearance of wrongdoing. It's a good thing he paid him back years later for those trips. Just an honest mistake, I'm sure.
It's such a darn shame that Keating's S&L cost taxpayers $3,000,000,000. Had regulators not been impeded by the Keating Five, it would have cost alot less, but that's how the cookie crumbles, I suppose.
I also can see how breaking a campaign finance law that he co-sponsored can be a little embarassing as well. It's a good thing the FEC has only two members right now and that one of them is a Republican, otherwise he might have to give the appearance of actually caring.
The Senate is ready to confirm the rest of the political appointees for the FEC. The Republican Senate leadership has stated they won't block the nominations.
However one who has blocked them is Obama.
We can talk a lot about the appearance of impropriety and whether or not someone is actually guilty. I'll cede that the appearance can be just as damming even if there is no guilt.
However I think stalling appointments of the elections commission when the minority and majority leadership are unopposed to the appointments in a year where you are in a presidential election is equally the appearance of impropriety.
But again I'll judge Obama with the same standard as I have the other two candidates. He's not running on a holier-than-thou campaign so I won't hit him on it.
MikeyA
My point is the Times should rethink most of what it prints attacking McCain. I'm not saying don't print it but just take an extra second to think about it.
Their first attack brought him support and a backlash against them. This one could further hurt them yet help him. This could very easily be looked at as an attack at not just him but the children of military members. Military members currently lean Republican in voting. If the Times continues with this and a backlash is felt it could rejuvenate military voting affects many "swing" states. Judging from McCain's background in the military and the others lack of service I don't doubt they'll vote heavily for him but the question is how motivated will they be to vote.
Brassmonkey I disagree with your assessment. This is the only election where I don't feel like the country is screwed if ____ gets elected. I think all the candidates could affect the country positively in one way or another and that's why I haven't made a decision.
Next week's election could be the first time I don't vote for a President race or primary just because of my uncertainty.
MikeyA
The main criticism of the NYT was that they took too long to print the story. It could have killed his campaign months ago.
As far as any one of the three remaining candidates affecting the country in a positive manner. I don't believe it will be possible to outdo King George in driving this country into the gutter, but I'm sure McCain is willing to give it a try.