New York Times gave 'price break' on ad berating Petraeus

SOS

Is alive.
Wackbag Staff
Aug 14, 2000
48,451
8,933
1,038
USA
#1
[SIZE=-1]New York Times gave 'price break' on ad berating Petraeus
[/SIZE]
Newsday.com
New York Times gave 'price break' on ad berating Petraeus

BY TOM BRUNE

tom.brune@newsday.com

11:33 PM EDT, September 23, 2007

WASHINGTON

The New York Times gave an unwarranted $77,000 "price break" to liberal MoveOn.org on its Sept. 10 full-page ad berating Army Gen. David Petraeus after all, the newspaper admitted Sunday.

After two weeks of saying it had given no special discount, the Times' Public Editor Clark Hoyt revealed Sunday that the paper should have charged MoveOn.org a $142,083 fixed-date rate instead of the $64,575 "seven-day standby" rate it did.

MoveOn.org executive director Eli Pariser insisted his political action group thought it had gotten a standard rate when it paid $65,000 for the ad, but said it would wire the Times the $77,083 difference today.

The Times' admission is certain to revive the ad controversy just as it was dying out, and could affect a federal probe.

The American Conservative Union has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, charging the Times' lower rate was an illegal campaign donation to MoveOn.org.

In his column yesterday, Hoyt said the Times also violated a policy against ads containing "attacks of a personal nature" by accepting the MoveOn.org ad copy, titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"

"I think the ad violated The Times' own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to," he said.

Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis told Hoyt, "We made a mistake."

Mathis blamed the ad department.

Pariser told Hoyt that MoveOn.org called the Times on Friday, Sept. 7, asking for a rush ad for the following Monday when Petraeus would go to Capitol Hill to give his Iraq war report.

The ad representative said there was room Monday and it would cost $65,000 -- without saying that "standby rate" did not guarantee a certain day, but simply one day of the Times' choosing in a seven-day period.

Not only did the representative fail to spell that out, Mathis said, but he "left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run" that Monday.

Pariser called on Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who demanded and got the same low rate from the Times for his own Sept. 14 ad attacking MoveOn.org, to also pay the more than $77,000 difference.

But Giuliani spokeswoman Katie Levinson replied, "While we appreciate that The New York Times and MoveOn.org have both publicly acknowledged their sweetheart deal, no amount of money will make right this misguided ploy attacking a general in a time of war."

Copyright © 2007, Newsday Inc.
 
Aug 10, 2007
156
0
0
#2
And? Every media outlet in this country has an agenda. The majority or should I say most well known are all owned by Rupert Murdoch and his conservative nut swinging beliefs.

I fail to see a problem with this "Price break", as a matter of fact the NYT should run this ad everyday for as many days as they please. Its a free country right? Oh wait.. I guess that applies unless it goes against your beliefs..
 

abudabit

New Wackbag
Oct 10, 2004
14,802
0
0
#4
And? Every media outlet in this country has an agenda. The majority or should I say most well known are all owned by Rupert Murdoch and his conservative nut swinging beliefs.

I fail to see a problem with this "Price break", as a matter of fact the NYT should run this ad everyday for as many days as they please. Its a free country right? Oh wait.. I guess that applies unless it goes against your beliefs..
Didn't the Democrats push for the campaign finance reform bill which outlawed this? :action-sm Hypocrisy thine name is Deek.
 
Aug 10, 2007
156
0
0
#5
I am glad you know that but the NYT should not pretend to be unbiased.
Again, does it matter if they say that their coverage is "Unbiased"? Is that any different from Bill O'Reilly and his "Fair and Balanced" tag line? He may claim that his program presents both sides of the equation but it hardly does. Usually the conservative guest will be well known or the leader of a well known organization and will present a decent argument and Bill will hardly interrupt. On the flip side, the liberal scum:rolleyes: is usually a second rate college student or the leader of some organization that no one knows about. Bill pretends to give equal coverage to both sides of the argument but he interrupts the "scum" and always gives the "last word" to his conservative guest.

Thats pretty much the definition of a "Bias". It happens in any newspaper, TV station or even news affiliated website.
 
Aug 10, 2007
156
0
0
#6
Didn't the Democrats push for the campaign finance reform bill which outlawed this? :action-sm Hypocrisy thine name is Deek.
Not so fast, I have no affiliation with either party.:action-sm

Best part being, Conservatives (Spineless Reps and some Dems) find an ad like this terrible. But when theres an election near anything goes. Republicans are pussies and they can't handle any criticism. On the other hand democrats are even bigger pussies because they can't take advantage of situations like this.

PS: The government blows:action-sm
 

Your_Moms_Box

Free Shit / Socialism 2016
Dec 20, 2004
5,755
468
628
Dover, Delaware
#7
I heard that John McCain has a ***** baby from an affair.


I also heard that John Kerry didn't actually do ANYTHING good in vietnam.



Seriously... where does the republican party get off being angry about an add that points out that Patraeus is a phony?
 

abudabit

New Wackbag
Oct 10, 2004
14,802
0
0
#9
To be more accurate, all price breaks for political ads require an equal price break offer to the competitors. It's the law. McCain-Feingold ring a bell?

When McCain-Feingold was being debated, conservatives and constitutionalists complained it violated free speech. Well here are the Democrats at the times who supported McCain-Feingold and dismissed the constitutionalists concerns - in trouble for the exact subject of the concerns they dismissed.