McCain and the New York Times

I grew up in the newspaper business.

I cut my teeth in the world of paper and ink.

In fact, I did every job one can do in daily journalism.

Yet, I have never, in 25 years in the business, seen a more shameless act of political partisanship by a news organization than the New York Times' rejection of presidential candidate John McCain's op-ed answer to his opponent, Barack Obama.

Not only was it a stunning decision to turn down publication of one candidate's opinion while gleefully publishing the other's opinion, but the explanation for the move seems almost like a parody of what one might expect from the immature and stridently ideological rag the once great Times has become.

Just to recap the facts: On July 14, the Times published a column by Obama outlining his plan for Iraq.

Within a few days, the McCain campaign submitted a column rebutting Obama's piece.

In what I suspect is an unprecedented move in American newspaper history, the Times rejected the McCain piece – asking for a rewrite!

The e-mail from editorial page editor David Shipley explained: "I'd be very eager to publish the senator on the oped page. However, I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. It would be terrific to have an article from Sen. McCain that mirrors Sen. Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms how Sen. McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory – with troop levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate."

In other words, we'll tell you what we want you to write.

To his credit, McCain refused.

In fact, I suspect he got much more mileage out of the amazing rejection by the Times than he could ever have received if it had been published in what was once called "the newspaper of record."

On the one hand, this story illustrates the continuing decline of the Big Media – a fall not just in audience and influence, but in credibility and standards.

I almost feel embarrassed for the Times. That's how bad this decision was.

But there's another aspect of this story worth noting, and that is John McCain's unmanly and unseemly obsession with what the New York Times and other establishment news organs think of him.

I doubt he has even learned from this shocking example that he can never win them over. He will never be enough like them to support over a Democrat – no matter how inexperienced that Democrat might be, no matter how extreme that Democrat might be.

McCain has an unquenchable desire to be loved by people and institutions that will never love him – no matter what.

Where are his former friends in the establishment press this week? Every one of the major network news anchors is in the Middle East shadowing Barack Obama's every move. Where were they when John McCain was in the Middle East? Comfortably ensconced behind their anchor desks stateside.

While McCain courts the New York Times, for example, he has steadfastly avoided appearances on the programs of major radio talk shows with audiences that dwarf the readership of the Times. These are shows hosted by personalities who support McCain, who want him to win, who have endorsed him.

Just as McCain is known for warring with members of his own party, he seems to have nothing but disdain for media people and institutions that should serve as his natural political allies.

So, in a sense, McCain got his just desserts from the Times. You sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas. That's just the way it is.