In WW2 President Roosevelt told the press they could censor themselves, or he would censor them. they responded by following guidelines that included not showing dead soldiers up close on their newsreels. etc.

Now the New York Times is not the government. It is a newspaper and it is censoring John McCain in regards to his ability to get equal time in their paper. That is not ethical.

The “equal time rule” does not exist anymore, either with respect to broadcasters or newspapers (it never applied to newspapers), as part of the no-longer-enforced “Fairness Doctrine,” which the Dems are trying to revive in order to squelch conservative talk radio.

They may be a business, but businesses are supposedly answerable to shareholders and those shareholders are under the impression that the New York Times is a reputable major newspaper, not an arm of the Democratic party.

That’s right, corporations are answerable to their shareholders. Thus, if their shareholders want to eliminate the bias in the NYT, they should vote out the current board of directors and put in a more neutral one. But this is all private sector stuff; the government has nothing to do with it. Of course, the very problem with the NYT is that under the current two-tier stock structure, owners of common stock do not get to vote for directors, which has thus given the Sulzberger family strangle-hold control over the liberal rag since 1935. Attempts to eliminate the two-tier structure have consistently failed. That’s why Rupert Murdoch (who owns Fox) and his effort to purchase the NYT drew so much attention.

@ivehadit

What about the responsibility given to the press in our constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the press to be in any way responsible. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Apart from the 13th Amendment, the Constitution does not regulate private behavior.

The liberal media is corrupt, through and through.

Agreed. And, apparently, 49% of Americans are cynical as well.

The “equal time rule” does not exist anymore, either with respect to broadcasters or newspapers (it never applied to newspapers), as part of the no-longer-enforced “Fairness Doctrine,” which the Dems are trying to revive in order to squelch conservative talk radio.

They may be a business, but businesses are supposedly answerable to shareholders and those shareholders are under the impression that the New York Times is a reputable major newspaper, not an arm of the Democratic party.

That’s right, corporations are answerable to their shareholders. Thus, if their shareholders want to eliminate the bias in the NYT, they should vote out the current board of directors and put in a more neutral one. But this is all private sector stuff; the government has nothing to do with it. Of course, the very problem with the NYT is that under the current two-tier stock structure, owners of common stock do not get to vote for directors, which has thus given the Sulzberger family strangle-hold control over the liberal rag since 1935. Attempts to eliminate the two-tier structure have consistently failed. That’s why Rupert Murdoch (who owns Fox) and his effort to purchase the NYT drew so much attention.

@ivehadit

What about the responsibility given to the press in our constitution?

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the press to be in any way responsible. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Apart from the 13th Amendment, the Constitution does not regulate private behavior.

The liberal media is corrupt, through and through.

Agreed.

I dont think it was a legal requirement but an ethical/professional standard.

The liberal media is corrupt, through and through.

It has been argued that the equal time rule applies only to broadcasters, however the NYT has been proud of its status as paper of record. The Grey Lady and all that.

If they want to be a partisan rag {and I guess we could call them that} then they need to make that plain to all and sundry. Of course if they came out and did that they could not continue to claim the kind of status they have always had.

They may be a business, but businesses are supposedly answerable to shareholders and those shareholders are under the impression that the New York Times is a reputable major newspaper, not an arm of the Democratic party.

Really? Under what law?

They are supposed to give equal time to the candidates without telling them what to say.

In fact, your statement – I would remove all national press credentials from this dying dinosaur until they begin to act like a professional new organization, instead of a PAC for Obama – comes far closer to true censorship. What, you would have the government shut down the New York Time until they play fair? The “licensing” of the press was the very practice that spurred the First Amendment. I dislike Obama very much, and I think that the NYT has zero credibility when it comes to neutrality. But I would vehemently oppose any government effort to regulate their speech. As per the famous saying, “I hate what you say, but I’ll die for your right to say it.”

Just as I oppose the “Fairness Doctrine” to regulate what conservatives say (to coerce a “fair” opposing, liberal viewpoint), I would oppose any de-credentialing of any newspaper on the basis of liberal bias.

The NYT’s behavior is outrageous. Nevertheless, the appropriate response is market-based boycott, not government-imposed fiat.

Maybe McCain will finally figure out that the NYT is an even bigger enemy of this country than Al Qaeda.

This is outrageous.