Did the Times give Moveon.org a cheaper rate?

One has to consider that this is in the Post, but if what they say about the NYT is true, it's an interesting story...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09142007/news/nationalnews/gops_full_page_rage_at_times.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's not true.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8719

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, that's the article that's wrong.

 

What's your source for that, Spider? I've seen nothing that refutes it...

 

Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said the advertising department does not base its rates on political content. She also said the department does not disclose the rates it charges for individual advertisements. But she did say that “similar types of ads are priced in the same way.” She said the department charges advocacy groups $64,575 for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them.

Also Giuliana just purchased an ad in the New York Times for the same rate.


As long as we don't have to talk about what the move-on ad actually said...

 

We can talk about the add, if you like (As is the case with most of what Moveon says, the add was poppycock). However, the issue here is the add rate. So is Mathis contradicting the earlier statements made by Serphos and the loons at moveon? I couldn't get your link to work...

 

The key information is that this was a standby rate, the run date is not guaranteed, thus anyone could get the same price.

Here's the article in case you didn't sign up for NYT access:

 

With all the no bid Haliburton contracts on record, you should be the last one to point the finger. Who cares if the NY times gave them a cheaper rate.

 

Obviously the NY Times is out to topple democracy.

 

Yeah, Ganymede, but the point is they didn't.

 

Gany, what the hell do you know about my opinion of the Haliburton deal, which has nothing to do with this? Have you ever asked me?

 

The Post didn't even bother to call over to the NYT - or walk over, on their lunch break - and get the skinny on things? The Post doesn't know how its local competition prices their ads?

That's kind of embarrassing, for a "news" paper - but maybe not as embarrassing as the other obvious possibility, which was that the Post is and has been a willing and cooperative tool unconcerned with factual reality.

So now we get the standard apology and admission of incompetence from the Post and every professional journalist who can't spell "ad" and who spread that story without checking it, just as they did with the other 47 similarly bent stories so far this year.

Or not. I'm betting not.

 

I said one has to consider the source, but I've also said that Mathis and The Times in this story haven't challenged the quotes attributed to Serphos and the loons at moveon. In fact, in the Time story Spider posted, the reporter apparently didn't even call moveon to get a comment. Why the hell not?

 

Hullabalosers

A few points:

• Challenging the MoveOn.org story: I don't see why it's necessary for the Times to challenge the MoveOn version of events. What would raise the necessity of such a challenge would be the credible assertion that the NYT charged the standby rate for an advertisement that was booked for a guaranteed spot.

• Challenging the Post story: The Post has yet to acknowledge the difference between the full and standby rates.

• Challenging Giuliani/Freedom Watch: Will the Giuliani campaign or Freedom Watch be willing to come forward and acknowledge, when all is said and done, that their ads were placed for the fee they demanded, and that their outrage over the difference between guaranteed and standby rates were mere political theater?

• Challenging the Los Angeles Times: When I heard Petraeus make the statement before Congress that the remarks he was about to give were his own remarks, I wondered instantly about the August 15, 2007 story by Barnes and Spiegel for the Los Angeles Times. In that story, the authors acknowledged "administration officials" claiming that the Petraeus report would actually be written by the White House. (Click here for article)

• Challenging the White House: Did Barnes and Spiegel make it up? Were their sources simply wrong, or did they take the bait on a deliberate White House misinformation campaign?

• Challenging General Petraeus: Did General Petraeus lie to Congress when he said his remarks were his alone? Additionally, the MoveOn.org advertisement asserts certain ways in which the numbers from Iraq are distorted; does the General acknowledge or refuse these distortions?​

Of that last, the advert may seem harsh to people, but this pretentious dressing up of outrage is intended to avoid the obvious questions. We must bear in mind that regardless of how the numbers are figured by the wonks and wizards in Washington and elsewhere, Petraeus is still a soldier, and if his orders are to count the bodies according to certain rules and bring back the totals, that is all we can expect him to do.

What strikes me is that there is a three-way tangle between the press, the White House, and the General that the entire discussion about the MoveOn advert seems to ignore. The Los Angeles Times reported that administration officials said the White House was writing the report. MoveOn.org, for its part, points to a front-page article from the September 9, 2007, Washington Post asserting daily communications between parties including the Pentagon, the State Department, the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, American forces in Baghdad, and former RNC chair Ed Gillespie devoted to the political sale of the surge. This will be an interesting mess to sort out. If Republicans truly feel as outraged as their political expressions suggest, they ought to demand of the Democratic congressional majority hearings to determine what the hell is going on. Subpoena Barnes and Spiegel, hold them in contempt if they refuse to roll on their sources. Ordinarily, this would be a bad idea in the political context, except that the GOP can crucify Barnes and Spiegel, as well as the Los Angeles Times, for allegedly fabricating the story and its allegations against the Petraeus report. If Petraeus then maintains his assertion that the report is his and his alone, and if he withstands inquiry from congressional Democrats, perhaps Barnes or Spiegel will roll on their source. That source can then come before Congress, and do we really want to wager on whether or not Bush will attempt to protect that person against the subpoena?

This investigation is what is missing from the "Betray Us" chapter of the Iraqi Bush War. And no wonder: without it, everybody has something to complain about, and nobody needs come up with an answer. Take a look at the situation: we've built bionic legs for a New York Post story that should have gone nowhere. Will we at least do the same for our maimed and wounded troops, especially considering that they're out there giving life and limb for a bunch of two-bit politicians who can't even give a decent reason for this disgusting extravaganza of murder and sacrifice?

 

Well, it seems like some people in this thread are wrong...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092300752_pf.html

 

Isn't it embarrassing when they are caught with their pants down around their ankles?

 

I guess they're trying to make up for all that Judith Miller BS they printed before the Iraq war.

 

There it is. The first illogical defense. Spider wins...

I'm still waiting to see what everyone else here has to say about it. I'm sure they will rationalize or take about the "Iraqi Bush War" or something. The fact is, though, the Post seems to be pretty dead on with their initial report...

 

? What has come out so far doesn't match the original Post story, as linked by you above - not in the amounts, not in the explanation, not in the headline implications, and certainly not in the overheated rhetoric.

We still have the Post publishing a story full of inflammatroy rhetoric it has obviously not factchecked, and a bunch of people spreading it and exaggerating it and construing it independently of actual events.

And, as I predicted, no apology - unless I missed something?