Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR 'BETRAY US' AD
NY Post ^ | September 13, 2007 | CHARLES HURT

Posted on 09/13/2007 6:08:17 AM PDT by presidio9

The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

-SNIP-

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

-SNIP-

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fakebutaccurate; graylady; moveon; newyorkslimes; nyt; partisanmedia; patraeus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 09/13/2007 6:08:18 AM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9

$116,000 is a considerable donation for the Times to MoveOn.org — and of course they are going to offer that same discount to all other points of view, in the spirit of fairness. /sarcasm


2 posted on 09/13/2007 6:10:52 AM PDT by TommyDale (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
If I were a regular advertiser in Pravda West, I’d be pretty pissed, knowing that I was subsidizing Moveon and their traitorous activities.
3 posted on 09/13/2007 6:11:02 AM PDT by vetsvette (Bring Him Back)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Simply Treasonous.


4 posted on 09/13/2007 6:12:21 AM PDT by tomnbeverly (“Show me just what Obama brought that was new, and there you will find only evil and Hillary.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Like I posted in another thread about the NYT:

That little “Pinch” and his turlit paper, needs a serious attitude adjustment.

5 posted on 09/13/2007 6:12:42 AM PDT by Vaquero (" an armed society is a polite society" Heinlein "MOLON LABE!" Leonidas of Sparta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
If I was advertising in the NYT, I'd instruct my ad department to not pay a dime more than MoveOn paid. We all know now how far they will drop their pants.

Of course, if I advertised in the NYT I'd be part of a dying breed bent on extinction.

6 posted on 09/13/2007 6:13:26 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush (An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Busted!! They better get ready to give discounts to other advertisers.


7 posted on 09/13/2007 6:14:24 AM PDT by maxter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

They must have had a coupon...............


8 posted on 09/13/2007 6:14:49 AM PDT by Red Badger (ALL that CARBON in ALL that oil & coal was once in the atmospere. We're just putting it back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

We need the Fairness Doctrine for newspapers. /sarcasm


9 posted on 09/13/2007 6:14:51 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I don’t think anybody has doubted their bias for a long time. But, the financial assist is just too blatantly an assist to their liberal fan base and the NYTimes should now just be considered a wing of the democratic party. Not that I’ve ever considered them anything else, but that ad was just too much.


10 posted on 09/13/2007 6:15:11 AM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

This is exactly why that Campaign Finance Reform law was such a farce.


11 posted on 09/13/2007 6:15:52 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessean4Bush

Indeed. I imagine there are a number of companies out there today who are going to be re-assessing the rates they are willing to pay to the NYT.


12 posted on 09/13/2007 6:15:52 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (The broken wall, the burning roof and tower. And Agamemnon dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

What is the "open rate" in the newspaper business? Anyone know?
13 posted on 09/13/2007 6:16:23 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
This means that the Times has become an active partner with MoveOn.org in smearing General Petraeus, one of the finest military officers the US has produced in the past generation. In fact, the Times contributed more money (value) to smearing the general than did MoveOn.org.

Despicable.

14 posted on 09/13/2007 6:17:57 AM PDT by RavenATB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Brothers in arms.


15 posted on 09/13/2007 6:18:43 AM PDT by pnh102
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
This article gives a lot of information on national advertising rates for full page ads.

http://www.gaebler.com/Newspaper-Advertising-Costs.htm

Examples:
A full-page black and white ad in the Wall Street Journal National Edition will run you $164,300.

A full-page color ad in the Wall Street Journal National Edition runs $210,300

A full-run, full-page black-and-white ad in the Washington Post can cost as much as $100,000

Los Angeles Times will run you about $70,000 for a full-run, full-page black-and-white ad

16 posted on 09/13/2007 6:20:15 AM PDT by mnehring (What does the Ron Paul Rorschach test say about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9




I clicked through and saw an article about this festive item too.

Apparently, very popular right now with everyone.

NUT BUSTER | By TODD VENEZIA | National News | US News | Current National News
17 posted on 09/13/2007 6:21:01 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale
$116,000 is a considerable donation for the Times to MoveOn.org

That huge discount is money that moveon.org will now be able to use for donations to the democratic party. So, indirectly, the NYTimes is essentially contributing that money to a candidate of moveon.org's choosing. It's even entirely possible that the NYTimes may have indicated that the savings be contributed to a candidate of their choice. Hmm... a conspiracy between the NYTimes and moveon.org?
18 posted on 09/13/2007 6:21:19 AM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

anything that causes the NY Slimes to lose revenue is a good thing


19 posted on 09/13/2007 6:21:55 AM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestu s globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

The NY Slimes lead the fight for the undemocratic restrictions on campaign finance. The Slimes believes it is exempt from any restrictions on THEIR own donations, such as this $116K donation to MoveON.Org.

Meaning only they (the media) control infromation prior to elections.


20 posted on 09/13/2007 6:22:01 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember (The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

“I imagine there are a number of companies out there today who are going to be re-assessing the rates they are willing to pay to the NYT.”

In advertising, there are published rates, and then there are the rates that advertisers really pay for a newspaper (or radio, TV, banner, etc) ad.

If I was purchasing ad space, I’d certainly look at this story, and call up my ad rep and demand to know why I (presumably a customer w/ a lot bigger budget) didn’t get rates as low, if now lower, than the one that MoveOn got.


21 posted on 09/13/2007 6:22:25 AM PDT by TWohlford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

I suppose the Times can discount however it likes, being a private entity. Fortunately, McCain-Feingold only gags the voters, not the libmedia on this stuff.


22 posted on 09/13/2007 6:22:35 AM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Wow, I guess the cows at moooooveon actually demanded that their rate be based on REAL circulation numbers. Amazing.


23 posted on 09/13/2007 6:22:36 AM PDT by GulfBreeze (Support America, Support Duncan Hunter for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
Another case of liberal projection. They always complain about the robber barrons tactics (in this case, the news paper owners), but they are doing the same thing. Billionaire leftist uses paper to mold public opinion to his way of thinking.

How is Sulzberger different than say, William Randolph Hearst?

24 posted on 09/13/2007 6:30:17 AM PDT by mnehring (Baby delivered at Ron Paul rally? Watch for it. You heard it here first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
“...Meaning only they (the media) control information prior to elections....”

FR is a pretty good information source itself. The lsm no longer has a monopoly in information control. They can spin it any which way the want to. FR, and sites like it, can take that info, disseminate it, and find the real truth in it. That’s why FR is feared and hated in certain circles.

25 posted on 09/13/2007 6:33:20 AM PDT by NCC-1701 (PUT AN END TO ORGANIZED CRIME. ABOLISH THE I.R.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: adorno
"Hmm... a conspiracy between the NYTimes and moveon.org?"

Exactly! Perhaps the prosecutors in New York would be interested in the investigation, as an added item to the new Hsu/Clinton/Democrat illegal contributions. Time to clean house again!

26 posted on 09/13/2007 6:36:33 AM PDT by TommyDale (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Gathering of Eagles should see about getting a deal like that. I’m sure the NYT would agree to be fair and balanced, aren’t you?

(yeah, that was sarcasm...)


27 posted on 09/13/2007 6:36:59 AM PDT by MizSterious (Deport all the illegals to sanctuary cities.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I think even some Democrats thought this was disgusting.....in my DREAMS!!!


28 posted on 09/13/2007 6:38:23 AM PDT by Suzy Quzy (Hillary '08...Her PHONINESS is REAL!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Given how much the Times is struggling, I doubt any advertiser is paying listed rate for any ad they place.

I’m personally thrilled at the discount and hope the fee is less than the cost to publish. I wish they would do it more often.


29 posted on 09/13/2007 6:39:48 AM PDT by steveyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the "family discount."

"I'm surprised they had to pay anything at all for the ad," the GOP staffer said. "They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."

Somebody in the GOP needs to identify this aide and give him/her a promotion. The guy has the cahones to say what most mealy-mouths in the GOP won't.

30 posted on 09/13/2007 6:43:56 AM PDT by Free State Four
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adorno

And in mainstream media circles, the Gray Lady remains the newspaper of record, just as 60 Minutes is still the most important weekly TV news magazine.


31 posted on 09/13/2007 6:43:56 AM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Since MoveOn.org is a 'non profit, tax exempt' outfit the Old Gray Whore can right off the $116,000 as a ‘tax deductible contribution’. On the same note, MoveOn has to claim it as a donation.

Too bad we don't have an AG, or Sec of Treasury that has the gonads to order the IRS to look at the books of both joints. ('heck' - they're still afraid to look at Jesse's Jagmo's books)

32 posted on 09/13/2007 6:44:03 AM PDT by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adorno
That huge discount is money that moveon.org will now be able to use for donations to the democratic party

Who can then get the same discount from the NYT and make the money stretch even further...

33 posted on 09/13/2007 6:44:37 AM PDT by Wil H (Islam translates to "submission", not "peace" - you can figure out the rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I wonder if the TIMES would give Free Republic the same discount. Hmmmm?


34 posted on 09/13/2007 6:45:00 AM PDT by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

That’s quite a sack of balls she’s got!


35 posted on 09/13/2007 6:46:22 AM PDT by MarineBrat (My wife and I took an AIDS vaccination that the Church offers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: adorno

Technically, I’m not even sure how much of an ethical problem, since eventually the Times will endorse the Democratic nominee anyway (at the moment, they seem to be leaning towards John Edwards, as far as I can tell).


36 posted on 09/13/2007 6:46:47 AM PDT by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
” they seem to be leaning towards John Edwards, “
Leaning towards Edwards, and tappin’ their collective foot!
37 posted on 09/13/2007 6:49:58 AM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ("Don't touch that thing")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; All
Brent Bozell just informed Fox and Friends that there’s more to these rates. If somebody gets the discount rate they must give up two things. Their choice of time and placement of the ad. The discounted ad is space available on the next convenient date for the paper and usually in later pages. He said that date and placement for this discounted ad is next to impossible, without the NYT giving more than tacit approval.
38 posted on 09/13/2007 6:51:21 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult (The man who said "there's no such thing as a stupid question" has never talked to Helen Thomas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
What is the "open rate" in the newspaper business? Anyone know?

You can think of it as the 'list price' on many products or the 'sticker price' on cars. It's the price that's quoted to potential customers prior to any sales negotiations that may take place.

39 posted on 09/13/2007 6:53:56 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult

sickening


40 posted on 09/13/2007 6:54:40 AM PDT by Cindy_Cin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Technically, I’m not even sure how much of an ethical problem, since eventually the Times will endorse the Democratic nominee anyway

Editorial endorsements during elections are accepted practice, but discounted advertising space and bias in the hard news pages, are something completely different.
41 posted on 09/13/2007 7:02:40 AM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Bogus Pachysandra

Damned coffee spray!


42 posted on 09/13/2007 7:05:56 AM PDT by US at Risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Doesn’t this qualify as an undocumented Political contribution?

Of course no charges will be filed, it’s the new york times.

All the BS fit to print


43 posted on 09/13/2007 7:17:31 AM PDT by Leofl (I'm from Texas, we don't dial 9-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I continue to be annoyed by the trash put out by the traitors at the NY Slimes. I only hear about it online as I refuse to pay for or even pick up the rag here in NYC.

Aren’t there election laws about this kind of contribution to a PAC or is that how moveon.org exists, thru the millions put in by the mad Hungarian?

44 posted on 09/13/2007 7:20:49 AM PDT by kevinm13 (The Main Stream Media is dead! Fox News Channel and Freerepublic Rocks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Even Bob Beckel(you remember him - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1283080/posts) said on Fox that MoveOn had way too much influence on the democratic party.

Same program mentioned that they had raised 50 million plus for the dems. Obviously bought and paid for.


45 posted on 09/13/2007 7:25:00 AM PDT by vietvet67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Hopefully other advertisers from the slimes will see this and demand an equal % discount on their advertising, or pull it altogether if they don't get the discount..... That will cut into some revenue for sure....
46 posted on 09/13/2007 7:42:09 AM PDT by b4its2late (FOOTBALL REFEREES: Best seat in the house, and we're paid to be there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Write the editor an email like I did saying this kind of stuff is why you don't buy their rag anymore. Here is what I wrote:

You know why your paper is falling so fast? It's because of your incredible bias that papers aren't supposed to have. You guy's have fallen so far left that you have become unreadable. This ad moveon.org put out about the General was a disgrace and bad enough, but you guys gave them that HUGE discount and the ad only cost $64,000 (normal price $160,000). Are you kidding me? UNBELIEVABLE!!! I am an Independent and I stay in the middle and you guys have just gone way to far left for me. This is why I no longer buy your paper and I assume it is why so many others don't anymore either. You people need to change coarse or your dead in the water. Look at the numbers, they don't lie. It's not because of the Internet either. Thats a terrible excuse. Good riddance.

47 posted on 09/13/2007 7:56:22 AM PDT by In God I trust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
If the Times does not give this rate to EVERYONE, I think they violate the Robinson Patman Act on discriminatory pricing... see below

The Robinson-Patman Act of 1936 (or Anti-Price Discrimination Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13) is a United States federal law that prohibits anticompetitive practices by producers, specifically price discrimination. It grew out of practices in which chain stores were allowed to purchase goods at lower prices than other retailers. The Act provided for criminal penalties, but contained a specific exemption for "cooperative associations". The Act is an amendment to Section 2 of the Clayton Act. In general, the Act prohibits sales that discriminate in price on the sale of goods to equally-situated distributors when the effect of such sales is to reduce competition. Sales to original equipment manufacturers (OEM) are not subject to RPA. Price means net price and includes all compensation paid. The seller may not throw in additional goods or services. Injured parties or the US government may bring an action under the Act. Liability under section 2(a) of the Act (with criminal sanctions) may arise on sales that involve: discrimination in price; on at least 2 consummated sales; from the same seller; to 2 different purchasers; sales must cross state lines; sales must be contemporaneous; of "commodities" of like grade and quality; sold for "use, consumption, or resale" within the United States; and the effect may be "substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce." "It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section." Defenses to the Act include cost justification and matching the price of a competitor. In practice, the "harm to competition" requirement often is the make-or-break point. Sales to Military Exchanges and Commissaries are exempt from the act.

48 posted on 09/13/2007 8:12:12 AM PDT by Vinnie_Vidi_Vici
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Fox reporting about the discount.


49 posted on 09/13/2007 8:21:59 AM PDT by psjones (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: psjones

How can anybody be surprised that a newspaper that publishes clasified reports to damage our national security would also support a disgraceful ad targeting a a military officer with a spectacular record. I don’t know how the editors of the Times stay out of jail. If things like this happened in early WWII they would have been shut down.


50 posted on 09/13/2007 9:36:24 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy (tHE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson