A Rejected Comment

By: kathstack
Published On: 4/30/2008 12:34:09 PM

This is a comment I attempted to post to the NYTimes editorial comment section. It was rejected, though I don't think it's particularly "abusive."

I guess it depends on who you abuse.

"This country would be in lots better shape if the media--and that includes the Times--spent as much time subjecting the GOP, from Bush to Cheney to McSame, to the same fearless scrutiny it employs with Democrats. what about Catholic-hating Hagee, the lobbyists running the straight-talk express, the confusion about who the protagonists actually are in Iraq, the "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," the admission of economic ignorance, the flip-flopping on taxes, and on and on.

Don't tell me you mention these things--I know you do. But do you analyze, discuss, bring up every day, explore the ramifications of, ask the candidate if he hates Catholics, convene panels to discuss whether McSame's associations hurt his party, and employ all the other tools you routinely use against Clinton and Obama? Of course not.

I am tired of the (GOP)embedded media picking candidates. If you want to know why your financials are tanking, consider that many more people self-identify as Democrats--and the democrats don't trust any of you. Are there enough right-wing Republicans to keep your empire afloat? I guess we'll see."

Comments



OMG, how hurtful ;) (Catzmaw - 4/30/2008 12:55:52 PM)
Sounds like you offended someone's delicate sensibilities.  

p.s.:  You're on the money.  



I'm willing to bet the "tanking financials" is what got them. (Randy Klear - 4/30/2008 2:23:59 PM)
There are some truths no corporation wants to face.


Seriously, the problem with this comment (aznew - 4/30/2008 3:08:00 PM)
is the lower case "w" beginning the second sentence in the second paragraph. It may not seem like much, but it is widely reported on the Web that "w" has always felt cheated and picked on by the other letters. It is not even really a letter, some say, since it really a doubling of another letter ('u").

I don't if anyone caught the Sesame Street piece on all this, but I recommend it. There is something fishy with this letter.

Anyway, were the Times to actually publish a comment with a lower case "w" where there should be an upper case "W", it is probably afraid that it would generate a shitstorm that would make the Jayson Blair controversy seem like an afternoon on the beach.

I'm guessing Bill Keller just doesn't want the hassle.