Skip to comments.NY Times criticized for ad attacking top general (Slimes Feeling Heat)
Posted on 09/13/2007 12:44:26 PM PDT by SkyPilot
NEW YORK (Reuters) - An ad criticizing the top U.S. general in Iraq raised charges on Thursday that The New York Times slashed its advertising rates for political reasons -- an accusation denied by the paper.
The ad by liberal anti-war group moveon.org ran on Monday, the day of Gen. David Petraeus' testimony to Congress about the war and how long U.S. forces will stay in Iraq.
Moveon.org confirmed it paid $65,000 for the full page ad headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us."
U.S. Army General David Petraeus, the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, speaks to reporters during a news conference on his report of progress in Iraq, in Washington September 12, 2007. An ad criticizing the top U.S. general in Iraq raised charges on Thursday that The New York Times slashed its advertising rates for political reasons -- an accusation denied by the paper.
The New York Post ran a story on Thursday asking why the basic rate of $181,692 for such an ad was discounted.
"Times Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for 'Betray Us' Ad," was the headline in the Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis denied the rate charged indicated a political bias and said it was the paper's policy not to disclose the rate paid by any advertiser.
"We do not distinguish the advertising rates based on the political content of the ad," Mathis told Reuters.
"The advertising folks did not see the content of the ad before the rate was quoted," she said, adding that there were over 30 different categories of ads with varying rates.
Mathis confirmed the open rate for an ad of that size and type was around $181,000. Among reasons for lower rates are advertisers buying in bulk or taking a standby rate, she said.
"There are many instances when we have published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance we take on our own editorial pages," she said.
The ad in the main news section of the Times accused Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House."
It angered Republicans, including Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, a presidential candidate who brought it to the Petraeus hearing on Monday and waved the ad in the air, telling lawmakers he was "irritated" by it and other criticism by Democrats.
Jeff Jarvis, a journalism professor who blogs on media at buzzmachine.com, said the key question for the Times was could any other political or advocacy group get the same rate under the same circumstances.
"The quandary the Times gets stuck in is they don't want to admit you can buy an ad for that rate, no matter who you are," Jarvis said, noting that with print advertising revenues in decline newspapers generally did offer big discounts.
On a more general note, Jarvis said U.S. papers should emulate their counterparts in Britain where, for example, The Guardian makes no effort to hide its liberal stance.
"In the U.S., I would argue newspapers should be more transparent and open about the views taken ... and the (New York) Times is liberal," he said.
Even if they charged normal rates, it’s still all in the family.
The sad part is that this will not matter one whit to most dems.
Lord, I hope the Slimes feels the heat more than ever for their biased despicable practices.
They didn't know it was from MOVE-ON, either, I bet.
Didn't have to, they knew it was from MoveOn.org and was anti-America crap. I guess it just saved the New York Times the trouble of writing a front page story.
Iraqi Information Minister redux.
“The advertising folks did not see the content of the ad before the rate was quoted,”
There are some Class B stockholders who would disagree, I think. If the story pans out, they will demand that the family compensate the Times for the cost of their political subsidy, I suspect.
It’s a twofer!
They get to print ugly, libelous anti-american slime without having to worry about getting sued, and they get paid for it too!
“and the (New York) Times is liberal...”
They’ve never denied that. In fact, they pretty much admit it, and lament the fact that the rest of us aren’t like them.
Gotta give a nod to Guiliani’s approach to this. I won’t vote for him in 08, but I do like his stance.
The Times’ ad was one small part of the depressing spectacle put on by the Left, including the Democratic Party. If they were capable of shame, they’d blush.
The NYT is effectively paying for half of the ad. They're partners with the ad's creators, no matter how they try to spin it.
“The sad part is that this will not matter one whit to most dems.”
The Dems have ceased to matter to me at all.
Come out of the closet, Slimes. Everyone knows it, it’s OK, just admit it...
That’s ok... it’s the moderates that we want to stand and take notice.
The libs are too retarded to actually change their stripes.
The question I have is whether the NYT advertising folks would want to see the ad content for a full page ad from NAMBLA or Larry Flynnt before they gave a rate quote...
The real question is: Will they run an ad for a conservative group for the same rate?
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!
Does any other whore ask about your politics, etc. before taking your money???
They have only themselves to blame for accepting such a stupid and slanderous ad. The anti-war people at MoveOn seriously overreached with this stunt.
Anytime you have an ends-justifies-the-means method of operating, the sky is the limit. What will they do to achieve power? What will they do when they get power? Every time their ilk gets into power, human beings become expendable and lives are sacrificed. Human beings become the means to their ends and there is no self-restraint about them. They will jack boot anything in their way.
Remember Waco, Arkancide, and Elian Gonzoles. And don’t forget the millions of abortions.
That’s because the DemonRATS are just plain evil.
The Times basically made a $100,000 donation to help spread this despicable smear. That decision had to come from the very top and I hope more honest media types are incensed enough to not let this one rest.
If moveon.org says they coughed up 65 large I’m going to want to see a canceled check on even that.
In 2007 and for the forseeable future you cannot be a Democrat and a Patriot. They are mutually exclusive.
No matter what was spent, it was a complete waste of money.
I remains my favorite and has sustained me more that once = although, as a grandMOTHER of 15, I will probably never "be a man" LOL
I think MoveOn should have to pay taxes on the other 2/3 of this cost — wasn’t it about $180K total? They could call it a donation. I love it that Giuliani wants to run an ad for the same price as MOo paid. haha.
“”There are many instances when we have published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance we take on our own editorial pages,” she said.””
And this wasn’t one of those times.
Yes but did they get a 2/3 discount.
Regardless of what they charged, they didn’t have to accept such a tasteless and seditious ad. They would deserve all the heat that could be focused at them if they charged twice the normal rate.
ALWAYS believe what the Times says. Always...
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.