Home
In this issue
April 9, 2014

Jonathan Tobin: Why Did Kerry Lie About Israeli Blame?

Samuel G. Freedman: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau

Jessica Ivins: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau

Kim Giles: Asking for help is not weakness

Kathy Kristof and Barbara Hoch Marcus: 7 Great Growth Israeli Stocks

Matthew Mientka: How Beans, Peas, And Chickpeas Cleanse Bad Cholesterol and Lowers Risk of Heart Disease

Sabrina Bachai: 5 At-Home Treatments For Headaches

The Kosher Gourmet by Daniel Neman Have yourself a matzo ball: The secrets bubby never told you and recipes she could have never imagined

April 8, 2014

Lori Nawyn: At Your Wit's End and Back: Finding Peace

Susan B. Garland and Rachel L. Sheedy: Strategies Married Couples Can Use to Boost Benefits

David Muhlbaum: Smart Tax Deductions Non-Itemizers Can Claim

Jill Weisenberger, M.S., R.D.N., C.D.E : Before You Lose Your Mental Edge

Dana Dovey: Coffee Drinkers Rejoice! Your Cup Of Joe Can Prevent Death From Liver Disease

Chris Weller: Electric 'Thinking Cap' Puts Your Brain Power Into High Gear

The Kosher Gourmet by Marlene Parrish A gift of hazelnuts keeps giving --- for a variety of nutty recipes: Entree, side, soup, dessert

April 4, 2014

Rabbi David Gutterman: The Word for Nothing Means Everything

Charles Krauthammer: Kerry's folly, Chapter 3

Amy Peterson: A life of love: How to build lasting relationships with your children

John Ericson: Older Women: Save Your Heart, Prevent Stroke Don't Drink Diet

John Ericson: Why 50 million Americans will still have spring allergies after taking meds

Cameron Huddleston: Best and Worst Buys of April 2014

Stacy Rapacon: Great Mutual Funds for Young Investors

Sarah Boesveld: Teacher keeps promise to mail thousands of former students letters written by their past selves

The Kosher Gourmet by Sharon Thompson Anyone can make a salad, you say. But can they make a great salad? (SECRETS, TESTED TECHNIQUES + 4 RECIPES, INCLUDING DRESSINGS)

April 2, 2014

Paul Greenberg: Death and joy in the spring

Dan Barry: Should South Carolina Jews be forced to maintain this chimney built by Germans serving the Nazis?

Mayra Bitsko: Save me! An alien took over my child's personality

Frank Clayton: Get happy: 20 scientifically proven happiness activities

Susan Scutti: It's Genetic! Obesity and the 'Carb Breakdown' Gene

Lecia Bushak: Why Hand Sanitizer May Actually Harm Your Health

Stacy Rapacon: Great Funds You Can Own for $500 or Less

Cameron Huddleston: 7 Ways to Save on Home Decor

The Kosher Gourmet by Steve Petusevsky Exploring ingredients as edible-stuffed containers (TWO RECIPES + TIPS & TECHINQUES)

Jewish World Review July 28, 2008 / 25 Tamuz, 5768

The New York Times and Liberal Fairness

By David Limbaugh


Printer Friendly Version
Email this article

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | I don't know which troubles me more: the liberal media's fawning over Barack Obama or the great number of people who are buying into his mystique so uncritically. But what bothers me more than either of these is the arrogance of the liberal press, which sadly is typical of so many liberals.


The media's deification of Obama is largely responsible for the perception that Obama is superhuman. Their coverage of his European tour ‘ the most breathtakingly presumptuous junket we've witnessed in American politics in ages ‘ is but the latest example.


How anyone can fall for the media's Obama rock star charade, given his repeated demonstrations of unfitness for the presidency, is a subject better suited for psychoanalysts.


But we can chalk up the media's irrational exuberance to their eagerness to have someone of like mind ‘ someone sufficiently socialistic and appeasement-oriented ‘ back in the Oval Office. With their insane aversion for President Bush and their craving for undefined change, it's hardly surprising they're blind to Obama's increasingly obvious flaws.


What's more difficult to stomach is their reckless obliviousness to their own close-mindedness, intolerance, unreasonableness and conceit ‘ and their mistaken projection of these attributes onto their conservative opponents.


Contrary to liberal-spawned conventional wisdom, it is not conservatives who are selective enemies of free expression, agents of intolerance or threatened by opposing views, which they are confident can be slain in the marketplace of ideas. It is not conservatives who dominate academia or who see it as their mission not just to instruct in their disciplines but also to engage in worldview indoctrination. It is not conservatives who, behind the mask of protecting "victims," censor political and religious speech on campus and in the public square.


It is not conservatives who, having lost in the talk radio marketplace of ideas, are pushing to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine to suppress political viewpoints they find objectionable. And it is not conservative newspaper editors who ‘ masquerading as objective, high-minded journalists ‘ exhibit the stunning audacity to refuse publication of an op-ed by the presidential candidate they oppose, after having published one from the one they endorse.


This brings me to the major source of my angst: The New York Times' rejection of Sen. McCain's op-ed in response to the one it published the previous week by Sen. Obama on his plan for Iraq.


Honestly, when I first heard reports about this, I thought they were in jest ‘ lampooning the Times' liberal bias. But I was quite wrong.


David Shipley, the Times' op-ed editor, sent an e-mail to McCain's staff rejecting the piece and offering suggestions on how to tailor it for resubmission. "I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. … Let me suggest an approach."


Just savor the dripping condescension. But it gets worse. Shipley said: "The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information; … he went into detail about his own plans. It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece." It would have to "articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq … lay out a clear plan for achieving victory ‘ with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."


In other words, it would have to use liberalspeak and "mirror" the messiah's. I'm almost speechless.


Liberal commentators, in defending the Times' position, are just as congenitally incapable of seeing this issue clearly. One such clarity-challenged defender argued it was reasonable for the Times to demand that McCain address the issues it raised.


That wholly misses the point. McCain is not a pundit in training submitting an opinion piece for publication, but the presumptive Republican presidential nominee presenting his side of the case. Sheer fairness alone would mandate that the Times run McCain's piece uncensored, as it did his opponent's.


Those saying the Times has an absolute right to reject McCain's work embarrass themselves. This is not about the Times' rights, but the propriety and fairness in their editorial decisions, the mindset leading them to those decisions and their inability to see their own mind-numbing bias in the process.


The left supports campaign finance reform, the Fairness Doctrine and other policies allegedly aimed at ensuring that both sides of the political argument be aired. But it's a colossal fraud.


The Times' rejection of McCain's piece is a case study in how liberals apply these principles. They don't believe in both sides presenting their viewpoints, but in controlling the nature and scope of the discussion.


Can you imagine what would be in store for political speech in this country if liberals resumed regulatory control of the airways?


I can and am horrified at the prospect; and you should be, too.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Archives

David Limbaugh, a columnist and attorney practicing in Cape Girardeau, Mo. Comment by clicking here.


DAVID'S LATEST:

Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of the Democratic Party BANKRUPT! That’s what the Democrats are when it comes to new ideas, or to defending America, or to doing anything more than protecting their own narrow political interests. Exaggeration? Hardly. Bestselling author David Limbaugh quotes Democrats to devastating effect as a party that has reduced its mind and heart to the level of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. In this startling new book, Limbaugh shows just how far the Democratic Party has fallen, and why there is little prospect of redemption.

Sales help fund JWR.

© 2008, Creators Syndicate

Columnists

Toons

Lifestyles