New York Times Says It Violated Policies Over MoveOn Ad, NY Times leans liberal ..? Options

[mhaverty]

You think Macy's, Bloomingdales and other big buyers don't already get a similar discount? Not unusual to cut some slack for a new customer if they look like they got the bucks for more tasty deals.

This is more like the night desk giving a hooker the corporate rate for a hotel room because she's wearing a tailored suit and tips well.

Pure speculation. Plus you contradict your own points. Either way this is bad biz for the paper.

[terrydactyl]

Yeah, listening to a bunch of decorated Vietnam Vets talk about their experiences and beliefs based upon their wartime firsthand experiences is for shame! Those guys who were in the mud getting their asses shot at are worthy of being called cowards by, um, whom again?

dont give me that shit
these guys are wholesale liars, they were never with kerry, and they took one kerry mistake about when he was in cambodia and blew it out of proportion and got sick fuck righties to call kerry a traitor/liar/coward, undeserbving of a purple heart when in fact it was these backwards ass hats who helped a whole batch of new arrivals to get their asses blown off in iraq
fuck the swiftboat vets and the white elephant they rode in on

[mfk]

C'mon mfk !

His commission ? You mean his half commission ?

And he violates their own policy for running personal attack ads ?

AND promise them the date they want it to run just as the general is to speak to congress ?

Think about this for a minute ..

Like I asked do you think Rush would have got the same set-up attacking Hillary ..you know cuz the guy is just thinking of his commision ?

meh, i can't believe i'm even argueing this shit. I don't even like moveon.org nor do i think they add much to the debate other than holding people's feet to the fire.

What are you looking for here though? For everyone to just jump up and say "See?? Hannity is right!! the Times DOES have a liberal bias!!!"

[MARSMAN]

What are you looking for here though? For everyone to just jump up and say "See?? Hannity is right!! the Times DOES have a liberal bias!!!"

No .. I don't even watch Hannity and I don't care what he says ..

My point here is that The Times did shit here that I don't think they would have ever done for a far right organization..

It does not show the paper being very impartial do to the personal attack nature of the ad ..

[Quill]

Pure speculation. Plus you contradict your own points. Either way this is bad biz for the paper.

That's not speculation. I've purchased ads in magazines. A nine issue full page package makes you their very best friend.

My point is that it's about money, not politics. Don't see where I've contradicted that in any way.

[His Daddy]

No... giving away precious ad print to an organization that has solid cash resources is ERRIBLE business. Never mind the ethics issues. Would the times give half price ad space to Promise Keepers? So now that sets the precedent that they have to give half price ad print to Macy's, Bloomingdales, etc. etc. Considering their circulation is shrinking it isn't very prudent to cut your revenue stream in half is it?

A full-page ad in the Boston Globe on any random weekday in black & white (according to their current rate card) is a little over $50k. Do you seriously think any advertiser pays $50k for a one-page ad? Dude, the published rates are rarely used in newspaper advertising. Half price was expensive for the NYT.

dont give me that shit
these guys are wholesale liars, they were never with kerry, and they took one kerry mistake about when he was in cambodia and blew it out of proportion and got sick fuck righties to call kerry a traitor/liar/coward [truncated]

Right, because Kerry never threw his medals away in public and on camera. Because it was another John Kerry who met with N. Vietnamese officials in Paris during the war. Because there were many guys quoted in the book who were only on the boats with Kerry on paper. The only one that was right is Kerry, and all the other veterans are wrong. I agree. HUGE conspiracy by decorated American veterans to smear the untarnished image and clear leadership of a US senator.

Those people in Chappaquiddick are assholes, too.

[mhaverty]

I simply find it telling that FoxNews alleged conservative bias is cause for constant and consistent consternation whereas The NY Times repeated and proven string of bias and unethical actions is either defended or not seen as such a big deal in the whole scheme of things. Very telling.

[mfk]

I simply find it telling that FoxNews alleged conservative bias is cause for constant and consistent consternation whereas The NY Times repeated and proven string of bias and unethical actions is either defended or not seen as such a big deal in the whole scheme of things. Very telling.

This is the funniest thing i have read on here in years

(no offense JTP)

[mhaverty]

A full-page ad in the Boston Globe on any random weekday in black & white (according to their current rate card) is a little over $50k. Do you seriously think any advertiser pays $50k for a one-page ad? Dude, the published rates are rarely used in newspaper advertising. Half price was expensive for the NYT.
Right, because Kerry never threw his medals away in public and on camera. Because it was another John Kerry who met with N. Vietnamese officials in Paris during the war. Because there were many guys quoted in the book who were only on the boats with Kerry on paper. The only one that was right is Kerry, and all the other veterans are wrong. I agree. HUGE conspiracy by decorated American veterans to smear the untarnished image and clear leadership of a US senator.

Those people in Chappaquiddick are assholes, too.

Then why did the NYT admit they were wrong?

Terry still hasn't grasped the fact that not once in the years 1970-2002 did John Kerry do anything to change the image of himself as a anti-war politico. Kerry's lies about being in Cambodia, contradictions in his testimony before congress and his admitting as much, and the fact that he was caught lying about the full disclosure of his military records all affirmed what the Swift Boat guys said about him. In fact they never really needed to say it because most veterans already knew this about Kerry. Nevermind the fact that they had full credibility as representatives of the US rmed forces who were repeatedly smeared by Kerry for political reasons repeatedly and on tape. The video's of Kerry in his uni and long hair disgracing soilders were not edited and they were engrained in the minds of thousands of veterans for the past 30 years.

[mfk]

i gotta hand it to you right-wingers...
you guys are fucking EXPERTS at changing the subject...

[woof.]

What is you point? That she protected a source and got thrown under the bus by her editors setting a dangerous precedent that many journalists were disgusted by?

my point is that she was a mouthpiece for the bush whitehouse, and that she "unduly influenced editorial content(AKA lying) outside of the editorial pages", which the times willingly participated in and got caught, and in the Times' position of "the paper of record" is supposed to be above such things. "Obviously they are not and it calls into question once again their standing as an unbiased arbiter of information delivery. "

so I would say this isn't such a matter of liberal vs. conservative bias, it's just another example of the news media being tainted, and to a far more egregious degree, as miller was printed/passed off as news/reporting, where as this was an advertisement, and never purported to be anything else.

[Supple Wrist]

What is you point? That she protected a source and got thrown under the bus by her editors setting a dangerous precedent that many journalists were disgusted by?

No, the point would be that she was a direct conduit for the misinformation supplied from the most senior administration officials who were beating the drums for war in Iraq.

It's not as if she was protecting a whistleblower by not naming her source, she was trying to obscure the fact that she was a simple water-carrier for an administration.

At least as many journalist were disgusted by the perversion of her mission as by the actions of her editors, who should have canned her long before.

In contrast to a discount on an ad, I would say multiple articles presented as factual but in fact were pure propaganda were far more important as to the credibility of the NYT, and those were slanted right, but MARSMAN would like to pretend Judith Miller never existed.

[woof.]

No, the point would be that she was a direct conduit for the misinformation supplied from the most senior administration officials who were beating the drums for war in Iraq.

It's not as if she was protecting a whistleblower by not naming her source, she was trying to obscure the fact that she was a simple water-carrier for an administration.

At least as many journalist were disgusted by the perversion of her mission as by the actions of her editors, who should have canned her long before.

In contrast to a discount on an ad, I would say multiple articles presented as factual but in fact were pure propaganda were far more important as to the credibility of the NYT, and those were slanted right, but MARSMAN would like to pretend Judith Miller never existed.

yeah...what he said....

[smcd]

Jesus, a newspaper ad salesman cut a deal to sell a full page ad. I seriously doubt sales ran it by the managing editor first. Moveon.org is a media buying company -- kissing their ass is a good sales policy for a newspaper.

So it's that simple to circumvent NYTimes policy? Just talk to a salesman about running a full page ad personally attacking a prominent military figure. Bob in sales will just fast track it as a favor.




Give me a friggin' break...


Every ad that could be controversial is bumped up to the highest echelon of the NYTimes management. Especially full page attack ads by partisan political groups.

The NYTimes, who consider themselves "the Paper of Note", knew exactly what they were doing. It ended up being a huge miscalculation on thier part, as it affects negatively their credibility.

What I find really odd in MoveOn.org's agreeing to cough up the extra money after the fact.

[terrydactyl]

A full-page ad in the Boston Globe on any random weekday in black & white (according to their current rate card) is a little over $50k. Do you seriously think any advertiser pays $50k for a one-page ad? Dude, the published rates are rarely used in newspaper advertising. Half price was expensive for the NYT.
Right, because Kerry never threw his medals away in public and on camera. Because it was another John Kerry who met with N. Vietnamese officials in Paris during the war. Because there were many guys quoted in the book who were only on the boats with Kerry on paper. The only one that was right is Kerry, and all the other veterans are wrong. I agree. HUGE conspiracy by decorated American veterans to smear the untarnished image and clear leadership of a US senator.

Those people in Chappaquiddick are assholes, too.

the vets who were with kerry tell a different story, and kerry was right to throw his medals away and make a stand against the wrongful and shameful vietnam war
you should get your priorities straight, people are dying

[MARSMAN]

i gotta hand it to you right-wingers...
you guys are fucking EXPERTS at changing the subject...

I'm not changing the subject ..

The subject is why would the Times do that ..

That was the entire meaning of this post ..

Put the war in another subject and I will tell you how much it sucks ..

Let's talk about one of the most famous and well respected in the country giving a helping hand to the left in this thread ..

and you still have not answered my all of my questions

[smcd]

no, the fucking ad was about Iraq.

No, the fucking thread is about the partisan political bent of the NYTimes.

[MARSMAN]

No, the fucking thread is about the partisan political bent of the NYTimes.

Exactly ..

talk about changing the subject !

[mfk]

Every ad that could be controversial is bumped up to the highest echelon of the NYTimes management. Especially full page attack ads by partisan political groups.

How do you know this? Are you 100% sure that this happened in this situation or are you just speculating? I'm being serious here.

What I find really odd in MoveOn.org's agreeing to cough up the extra money after the fact.

Now THIS is news to me. Where did you see this?

[terrydactyl]

Then why did the NYT admit they were wrong?

Terry still hasn't grasped the fact that not once in the years 1970-2002 did John Kerry do anything to change the image of himself as a anti-war politico. Kerry's lies about being in Cambodia, contradictions in his testimony before congress and his admitting as much, and the fact that he was caught lying about the full disclosure of his military records all affirmed what the Swift Boat guys said about him. In fact they never really needed to say it because most veterans already knew this about Kerry. Nevermind the fact that they had full credibility as representatives of the US rmed forces who were repeatedly smeared by Kerry for political reasons repeatedly and on tape. The video's of Kerry in his uni and long hair disgracing soilders were not edited and they were engrained in the minds of thousands of veterans for the past 30 years.

i find it a laugh riot who many vets blame for their demise
who sent them to die?
kerry, fonda and moore

[woof.]

...as it affects negatively their credibility.

they didn't have much to begin with as far as I'm concerned.

[mfk]

No, the fucking thread is about the partisan political bent of the NYTimes.

i said AD. The fucking AD was about iraq.

[smcd]

ad sales has little or nothing to do with editorial anyway.

It's a dumb thing to get upset about. I agree the NYTimes has egg on it's face for the appeaerance of impropriety, but I'm astonished that the debate has shifted to this.

Meanwhile, the surge continues, more people die and the fucking premise of the ad is proven.

But heaven forbid that someone got a deal on a full page ad!!!

Are you claiming that Iraq and only Iraq should be discussed by politicians and pundits?



Any other dialogue about anything else is superfluous?

[mfk]

Are you claiming that Iraq and only Iraq should be discussed by politicians and pundits?
Any other dialogue about anything else is superfluous?

In this case, yes. If anything, the discussion should be about moveon.org's ad and not the fact that it ran in the first place for whatever price. It's another "shoot the messenger" scenario.

[smcd]

As i said before, advertising and editorial are generally separated to the point where one doesn't know where the other even works.

people are going to keep thinking that the times has a liberal bias anyway because fucks like hannity and o'reilly and all the other Right-biased media people keep spouting it.

I honestly believe that this had more to do w/ some ad salesman thinking about his commission than the content of the ad.

So...

You work in the print media, and you have no idea how the industry works??



The New York Times' public editor Clark Hoyt wrote that in his opinion, not only did the advertiser get a discount it was not entitled to, but the ad violated The Times' own written standards.




Your claim above is so absurd, it borders on insane.