House Republicans fire off letter to New York Times

In a move echoing past flaps over the perceived liberal bias among mainstream media outlets, House Republicans distributed a letter on Wednesday formally "urging" The New York Times to allow a third party to take out a full-page ad featuring a rejected opinion piece by their party's presidential candidate, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

Calling the decision not to run McCain's op-ed "unfortunate" and "alarming," Republicans in the House asked the paper "to permit a third partythe purchase of ad space" in the Times "as a second-best means of responding" to an op-ed by Sen. Barack Obama the Times published recently.

The GOP has taken issue with national media coverage - particularly in the Times - many times in the past. Last year, Republicans seized on MoveOn's full-page Petraeus/"Betray Us" ad as a sign of the paper's liberal sympathies.

"A national publication such as the Times has a clear obligation to provide equal access to its op-ed page to both candidates," the Republicans wrote, "to convey fairness by the paper and to help further the national debate."

"In his op-ed, Senator Obama addresses the differences between his position and Senator McCain's position on Iraq, and responds to the criticisms leveled by the McCain campaign," the letter continues. "The Times readership, and indeed the public, deserves an equal chance to read Senator McCain's response on the same editorial page."

GOP lawmakers also complain that an e-mail sent to the McCain campaign explaining the decision presents a clear editorial bias "by presuming to tell Senator McCain how and what to write in his submission in order to win the favor of the Times' Op-Ed editors."

The Republicans play on a perception that members of the national media clearly favor Obama over their own candidate, citing a Rasmussen poll that shows 49 percent of the respondents believe members of the media "will actively attempt to assist Senator Obama's campaign" - a narrative that has taken root on cable news and the late-night comedy circuit as well.

As of Wednesday afternoon, 96 House Republicans had signed the letter.

The text of the letter is after the jump; we'll post a response from The Times when we get one.

July 23, 2008

Mr. David Shipley

Op-Ed Page Editor

The New York Times

620 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10018

Dear Mr. Shipley:

We write to you out of great concern regarding the New York Times Op-Ed page's recent decision to reject an op-ed submitted by Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate for President. Senator McCain's op-ed was in response to one published by the Times on July 14th by the presumptive Democrat nominee, Senator Barack Obama, regarding his plan for Iraq.

This unfortunate and alarming decision occurs at a time when the candidates, and the nation they are campaigning to serve, are engaged in a critical debate regarding the future of Iraq, and particularly whether there should be a timetable for withdrawal or a measured troop presence for the foreseeable future to maintain stability in the country and the region.

A timely opinion piece by a presidential candidate is an important piece of information that Americans can use to measure the candidates and their respective positions. Moreover, a national publication such as the Times has a clear obligation to provide equal access to its Op-Ed page to both candidates, regardless of whether the Times' Op-Ed editors personally disagree with the content of their submissions, to convey fairness by the paper and to help further the national debate.

In his op-ed, Senator Obama addresses the differences between his position and Senator McCain's position on Iraq, and responds to the criticisms leveled by the McCain campaign. The Times readership, and indeed the public, deserves an equal chance to read Senator McCain's response on the same editorial page. Instead of providing that opportunity to your readership in the Op-Ed page, your email response to the McCain campaign rejecting the Senator's opinion submission stated:

"It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece… It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory – with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the Senator's Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."

While it is commonplace for newspaper editorial pages to limit the topic and length of submitted material, your email crosses the line by presuming to tell Senator McCain how and what to write in his submission in order to win the favor of the Times Op-Ed editors.

The perceived lack of fairness and equal access shown by the Times Op-Ed page in this incident is particularly unfortunate, as it comes at a time when polls show that a sizeable percentage of Americans identify a clear Democrat bias in the national media. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll shows that 49% of respondents believe the media will actively attempt to assist Senator Obama's campaign, compared to just 14% who say the media will try to help Senator McCain. With this in mind, one would think conveying impartiality would be particularly important in this specific instance for an op-ed page currently edited by a former speechwriter for former President Bill Clinton.

If, despite this alarming indictment of the media's integrity by the American public, you refuse to provide Senator McCain the opportunity to explain his views as he wrote it, as opposed to how you want it, we would strongly urge you to permit a third party the purchase of ad space in your newspaper as a second-best means of responding to Senator Obama's essay, so that Senator McCain's views can be read unfiltered, perhaps at the same reduced rated enjoyed by the liberal 501(c)(3) group MoveOn.org when it ran its disgraceful ad regarding General David Petraeus last September.

Given the critical importance of the nation's Iraq policy in the context of the upcoming Presidential election, Senator McCain – and the American people – deserve nothing less.

See also