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

[MARSMAN]

New York Times Says It Violated Policies Over MoveOn Ad

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 24, 2007; A08



After two weeks of denials, the New York Times acknowledged that it should not have given a discount to MoveOn.org for a full-page advertisement assailing Gen. David H. Petraeus.

The liberal advocacy group should have paid $142,000 for the ad calling the U.S. commander in Iraq "General Betray Us," not $65,000, the paper's public editor wrote yesterday.

Clark Hoyt said in his column that MoveOn was not entitled to the cheaper "standby" rate for advertising that can run any time over the following week because the Times did promise that the ad would run Sept. 10, the day Petraeus began his congressional testimony. "We made a mistake," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis was quoted as saying.
MoveOn, saying it had no reason to believe it was paying "anything other than the normal and usual charge," said yesterday that it would send the Times $77,000 to make up the difference.

The Times also violated its own advertising policy, which bars "attacks of a personal nature," Hoyt reported. He wrote that the episode "gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the 'liberal media.' "

Many Republicans have seemed to prefer talking about MoveOn's ad rather than the war itself.

On Thursday, President Bush called the ad "disgusting," saying that "most Democrats . . . are more afraid of irritating [MoveOn] than they are of irritating the United States military."

On Friday, the Senate voted 75 to 25 to denounce the ad. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic presidential front-runner, was questioned repeatedly about the ad yesterday while taping interviews with all five Sunday talk shows.

Clinton said she did not approve of personal attacks from any quarter but avoided criticizing MoveOn by name.

The group told its 3 million members by e-mail that some might think "the language went too far. . . . But make no mistake: this is much bigger than one ad."

[terrydactyl]

ya like how bush and his party constantly parse and twist words and meanings to get the dumber righties to misunderstand points and meanings?
like criticizing patraeus, who is under orders to agree with bush, means that you blame and disrespect the troops
theyve been using hitler tactics for yrs and their still doing it
i dont understand why the troops and their families arent offended by the repub senate and the bush administration's condescending attitudes for the serviemen and crocodile tears for the fallen while they send them out to die for nothing

[MARSMAN]

ya like how bush and his party constantly parse and twist words and meanings to get the dumber righties to misunderstand points and meanings?
like criticizing patraeus, who is under orders to agree with bush, means that you blame and disrespect the troops
theyve been using hitler tactics for yrs and their still doing it
i dont understand why the troops and their families arent offended by the repub senate and the bush administration's condescending attitudes for the serviemen and crocodile tears for the fallen while they send them out to die for nothing

Ummmm Yes ?

[mfk]

Jesus Christ, I can't believe people are freaking out about a fucking ad when the greater issue is WHEN THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO GET OUT OF IRAQ. The swift boat fucks can attack all they want on TV, print, internet, etc, but once the fucking NY Times runs a move on ad at half price, everyone freaks out.

This whole scandal is an exercise in deflection.

[The Lurker]

Barone has become much more of a partisan asshole over the last 10 or so years and his writing has suffered for it. His Almanac of American Politics is still a valuable resource, but the editions from the 70s through early '90s were much more evenhanded and included a lot of fascinating, indepth coverage. Now every entry is formulaic and usually includes at least one snide liberal-bashing comment.

[terrydactyl]

Jesus Christ, I can't believe people are freaking out about a fucking ad when the greater issue is WHEN THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO GET OUT OF IRAQ. The swift boat fucks can attack all they want on TV, print, internet, etc, but once the fucking NY Times runs a move on ad at half price, everyone freaks out.

This whole scandal is an exercise in deflection.

this is the shame of our country
deflectind and insulting
thats all the impotent right has now, apparently
hillary's a shoe in and no, im not voting for her, and not because shes not the best and brightest among all candidates because she is

[mhaverty]

Jesus Christ, I can't believe people are freaking out about a fucking ad when the greater issue is WHEN THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO GET OUT OF IRAQ. The swift boat fucks can attack all they want on TV, print, internet, etc, but once the fucking NY Times runs a move on ad at half price, everyone freaks out.

This whole scandal is an exercise in deflection.

You are comparing apples and chickens. The issue here is unduly influencing editorial content outside the parameters of the editorial pages. It is clear the Times willingly participated in a highly unethical practice and got caught doing it. The Times, in their position as "the paper of record" are 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.

If the Swift Boat fucks got half priced ads from the Wall St. Journal you certainly would have a beef.

[elk]

this is the shame of our country
deflectind and insulting
thats all the impotent right has now, apparently
hillary's a shoe in and no, im not voting for her, and not because shes not the best and brightest among all candidates because she is

I get it. This is an exercise in Burroughs' "cut-up" technique, right?

[terrydactyl]

I get it. This is an exercise in Burroughs' "cut-up" technique, right?

uumm,...yeah
yes it is

[terrydactyl]

You are comparing apples and chickens. The issue here is unduly influencing editorial content outside the parameters of the editorial pages. It is clear the Times willingly participated in a highly unethical practice and got caught doing it. The Times, in their position as "the paper of record" are 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.

If the Swift Boat fucks got half priced ads from the Wall St. Journal you certainly would have a beef.

that anyone even listened to the swiftboat lying cowards is shame enough

[smcd]

Jesus Christ, I can't believe people are freaking out about a fucking ad when the greater issue is WHEN THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO GET OUT OF IRAQ. The swift boat fucks can attack all they want on TV, print, internet, etc, but once the fucking NY Times runs a move on ad at half price, everyone freaks out.

This whole scandal is an exercise in deflection.

I'll tell you what "deflection" is.


Deflection is making a post about the Iraq war in a thread about the NY Times and it's liberal bent.



That's deflection!

[Quill]

On Thursday, President Bush called the ad "disgusting," saying that "most Democrats . . . are more afraid of irritating [MoveOn] than they are of irritating the United States military."

Taking out a few Democrats will teach them not to irritate the United States military.

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.

[His Daddy]

that anyone even listened to the swiftboat lying cowards is shame enough

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?

[mfk]

I'll tell you what "deflection" is.
Deflection is making a post about the Iraq war in a thread about the NY Times and it's liberal bent.

That's deflection!

no, the fucking ad was about Iraq.

[mhaverty]

Taking out a few Democrats will teach them not to irritate the United States military.

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.

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?

[MARSMAN]

Jesus Christ, I can't believe people are freaking out about a fucking ad when the greater issue is WHEN THE FUCK ARE WE GOING TO GET OUT OF IRAQ. The swift boat fucks can attack all they want on TV, print, internet, etc, but once the fucking NY Times runs a move on ad at half price, everyone freaks out.

This whole scandal is an exercise in deflection.

Ask yourself if they would have run the ad if it was attacking Hillary and paid for by Rush Limbaugh..

At a discount of course !

My post of this has nothing to do with the war, it has to do with The Times helping out the left ..

Don't you think having The Times on your side is pretty powerful in the world of politics ..? Especially when it it suppose to be and impartial news reporter ..?

[Toady]

kissing their ass is a good sales policy for a newspaper.

Selling at full price is an even better sales policy.

[woof.]

You are comparing apples and chickens. The issue here is unduly influencing editorial content outside the parameters of the editorial pages. It is clear the Times willingly participated in a highly unethical practice and got caught doing it. The Times, in their position as "the paper of record" are 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.

If the Swift Boat fucks got half priced ads from the Wall St. Journal you certainly would have a beef.

didn't judith miller work for the NYT?

[MARSMAN]

no, the fucking ad was about Iraq.

Are you sure you are not just mad because this shows your favorite paper in a bad light and gives a little bit of credence to the "liberal media" chant of the right ..?

Honestly is that the point even a little bit ..?

[mfk]

Ask yourself if they would have run the ad if it was attacking Hillary and paid for by Rush Limbaugh..

At a discount of course !

My post of this has nothing to do with the war, it has to do with The Times helping out the left ..

Don't you think having The Times on your side is pretty powerful in the world of politics ..? Especially when it it suppose to be and impartial news reporter ..?

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!!!

[mfk]

Are you sure you are not just mad because this shows your favorite paper in a bad light and gives a little bit of credence to the "liberal media" chant of the right ..?

Honestly is that the point even a little bit ..?

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.

[Quill]

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?

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.

[mhaverty]

didn't judith miller work for the NYT?

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?

[MARSMAN]

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

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 ?

[terrydactyl]

I'll tell you what "deflection" is.
Deflection is making a post about the Iraq war in a thread about the NY Times and it's liberal bent.

That's deflection!

the same paper that gave bush free reign and no backtalk with all the lies about iraq/nyc connection leading up to the war?