Friday, February 8, 2008


In a recent submission to the New York Times I wrote, in part, a statement about Rush Limbaugh. I referred to him as a former drug addict giving him the benefit of the doubt that his 28 days in a rehab center 'cured' him, although those of us familiar with substance abuse and the character traits of abusers speak and acknowledge the concept of recovering rather than recovery. The mention of Limbaugh was not the central point of my submission, but mentioned in passing. The thrust of my submission, instead focused on Obama's calm and reasoned opinion expressed during the recent debate in Hollywood that movie makers have the obligation to carefully consider and monitor the quality of their work in reaching intended, read young children, audiences. My submission was rejected. The policy of the NYT on submission of comments is as follows:

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence and SHOUTING.

The Times has formally endorsed Clinton and, both prior to and subsequent to that endorsement, directly and indirectly, has taken a pro-Clinton tilt to its various presentations. This apparently includes the Opinionator which, by my understanding, is supposed to be a forum for the presentation of ideas, opinions, etc. in an objective fashion. The notion that the rejection of someone expressing a rational statement about the performance of a Clinton competitor on a subject matter that is near and dear to the hearts and minds of millions of Americans is troubling and reveals the bias of the purportedly neutral and open forum In short, the only reason I can fathom for the rejection of my submission was the statement about Limbaugh. Today, however, another commentator states "Talk radio’s leading gasbag, Rush Limbaugh, said as much, telling listeners that a vote for Huckabee was a vote for McCain." The term 'gasbag' constitutes in my judgment a 'personal attack' on the man. On the other hand, to call him a drug addict is a statement of fact. I am writing this to register my disappointment in the NYT in its rather obvious attempts to influence people who want nothing more than the best for our nation.

No comments: