Don't look at me, I don't work for any of them. You'd think the man would have sent his letter to a paper biased in his direction at that point--or is it that he just wanted to say he'd been rejected by the big bad New York Times? There's going to be bias, in everything. Whatever paper you're citing was wrong to publish something like this (but from the other side) for the same reason--if we're going to say that sound bites and half-truths are "good enough" we're never going to get anywhere.
It's a lot harder than it used to be to assassinate the President if you want to live through the experience, but there's really nothing much that can stop a determined and capable suicide assassin. Determined and capable suicide assassins are, however, quite rare.
In your opinion. I'd be more interested in whether Pritchett has written a follow up letter. Or if he's aware that something he wrote three months into a new administration has now become viral and been taken up as some sort of rallying cry.
Why would he need to write a new letter? What has really changed? If anything, the letter is more accurate today than it was a year ago.
In your opinion. Which is why you all are so enamored with this letter, because nothing in your minds has changed, ergo you'll keep passing this letter around until Zombie Reagan rises from the grave and picks Ron Paul as his running mate.
I'll tell you what has changed. More and more people are starting to figure out that Obama cares more about a headline than he does about implementing good policy. So the letter bears repeating for those who might have missed it when it was first published because they were in a Koolaide stupor. Quick, somebody hit up that Hopium supply they have stocked up in Chicago before the jig is up!
Because the first amendment doesn't apply to anyone but the government. The New York Times doesn't have to give this man any time at all while giving Obama everything he wants. Don't make it right. Unethical as hell especially considering they claim to be "neutral and unbiased" but certainly not a violation of the first amendment.
Oh, come on. The first amendment in no way obligates newspapers to publish every letter sent to them. That kind of requirement would be the opposite of "freedom of speech." If the media covers every announcement Obama makes, it's probably because he's the President of the Unites States of America, and announcements made by the President of the Unites States of america tend to be of interest to people, no matter who the President is.
No one said that it should require them to do so, they're just pointing out the hypocrisy of how a newspaper like NYT might publish something like this letter if it was something a liberal wrote against Bush, but not one from a conservative against Obama. It's simply commentary on bias.
That's their policy, but I think it's in poor judgment. I rather like the idea of a newspaper being a gateway to an open forum. Much more civilized than this internet we have now.
What I find sad is that science fiction magazines routinely publish letters from fans bitching and moaning about something that are many times the size of most newspaper letters to the editor. I had full page letters published at one time or the other published in Sci-Fi Universe, Cinescape, and Starlog.