Why did the NYT slash $116,000 off the normal rate of a full page ad for MoveOn.org’s disgraceful ad which essentially called General Petraeus a traitor? Charles Hurt from the NY Post reports:
September 13, 2007 — WASHINGTON - 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.
Headlined “Cooking the Books for the White House,” the ad which ran in Monday’s Times says Petraeus is “a military man constantly at war with the facts” and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that “General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.”
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.
Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.
Well, knowing the NYT, they probably felt bad about charging them the full rate, considering the editorial board normally approves of and runs hit pieces like that against the administration on a daily basis for free.
Contact the NYT and let them know what you think about this:
E-mail: public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652
Address: Public Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Three reasons at least.
A) The NY Times is hurting
B) The NY Times sympathises with moveOnbattery, thus
tacitly endorsing the ad, with a moonbat coupon.
C) See A and B.
Comment by Fat Tone @ 9/13/2007 - 9:34 am
This is going to kill them in the end. If I were any of the people running for President, monthly I would demand a full page ad for the same price. From what I understand of TV commercials, my brother makes them for a local station, by law all political advertising gets the lowest rates that were charged for that year. If these boneheads dropped their rates to such a ridiculous level, then I as a candidate would definately take advantage of it. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 9/13/2007 - 10:14 am
I cannot understand how the Times can legally do this. In the publishing industry, in which I spent my working career, I know that it is illegal to provide favorable discounts to customers. You can offer a larger discount for buying “in bulk.” Amazon and B&N will both get larger discounts because they buy more copies of the books–but they must get identical discounts, typically 50% off publisher’s suggested list price. Mom and Pop stores, which buy fewer copies, get a smaller discount. And if they special-order for you, that discount will be even less–pretty much what you’d get if you ordered the book directly from the publisher’s website.
Also, there is (or is supposed to be anyhow) a firewall between the business and editorial end of the newspaper.
I am majorly puzzled by all of this.
Comment by Leslie @ 9/13/2007 - 10:16 am
Leslie, are you really puzzled by this ?…..were it the Wall Street Journal, I could understand your bewilderment….but this is the NY Times here.
Comment by Fat Tone @ 9/13/2007 - 10:23 am
I don’t understand how they can legally do this as well. It would seem like their ad prices would be public knowledge. Looks like someone gave someone a kickback.
Comment by dude1394 @ 9/13/2007 - 10:33 am
MoveOn made a craptacular move that really bent the tracks for the Democratic Express which was in an elaborate prequel trying to undermine Petraeus’s credibility when the over-the-top ad appeared.
The specious spurious lying MoveOn guttersniping gave the lie to any Democratic claims to objective analysis. The subsequent cowardice of Clinton and the seven dwarfs [or however many] reveals the craven appeasement Dems make toward ultra-left bloggers.
Do the Dems believe that the country doesn’t note their craven abject submission to blackmail by MoveOn, who overtly tells them that if they condemn the ad, they will be punished by guttersnipe bloggers in Soros-cide squads?
These things get out, and the more the MSM like the NYT tries to cover up their discounting the MoveOn ad and other complicity with this outrageous slander of an honorable man, the more the American people will realize that the Mighty Wurlitzer of the left MSM does not have the interests of the USA first and foremost.
Comment by daveinboca @ 9/13/2007 - 10:41 am
Well, it’s just more evidence that the Times is in collusion with the Dems. Or a wholly-owned subsidiary.
Comment by benning @ 9/13/2007 - 11:39 am
Can you imagine if FOX gave a discounted rate to a right wing org ?
The world would crumble in the leftosphere. They would go nucking futs.
Comment by Fat Tone @ 9/13/2007 - 12:28 pm
Wouldn’t a $116,000 discount be considered a campaign contribution? I wonder if they have disclosed this contribution?
Comment by Vatar @ 9/13/2007 - 2:22 pm
Leslie, I’m calling BS.
It may be “illegal” in some provinces (much like speeding or jaywalking), but papers in NY can charge whatever they want as long as its consistent BY SECTION. How do you know MoveOn wasn’t buying in bulk? How do you know when the insertion order was placed? We’ve known this report was coming since February. What were the rates then? Last minute insertions (like calling today for a quote on an Ad tomorrow) will always be more expensive because if you add a page to an already full publication, they’re not going to kick out the other advertisers, they have to add another sheet of paper (and depending on the layout, one extra page can become 4). Was it part of a make-good (when it has been determined that a pub is at fault for a run error they often “make it up” by just giving free space to the advertiser)?
For a site that screams BDS at the drop of a hat, you sure do have NYTDS. Maybe Murdoch can buy it and then nothing untoward would ever happen!
What is illegal/unethical is disclosing to non-involved parties what price people pay to advertise.
Comment by Chemistry Lesson @ 9/13/2007 - 2:30 pm
Nah, we don’t need that. After all since the dems have taken the majority in the Senate and the Congress they are going to make REAL changes…….right?
Comment by NC Cop @ 9/13/2007 - 2:41 pm
That is sure what it sounds like to me, Vatar.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 9/13/2007 - 2:41 pm
Got any evidence of other ad campaigns they’ve placed? Or that they even have a reduced bulk rate? Or are you just making excuses for the Times?
Fair question. Based on the fact that no one at the Times has come forward to mention this factor, it’s a safe bet it had no bearing on the price.
Again, if that were a factor, the Times would have pointed to it by now, so the safe assumption is that the rates were no different.
That last point is an interesting one, though. Assume for the moment that the ad WAS placed last Feburary. That would be before anyone knew how successful the surge was destined to become. Now we already know MoveOn has no credibility, so their copy in February would be the same now as it is today. But what does it say about journalistic standards at the Times if they agreed in February to publish an ad decrying a report that wasn’t even going to be issued for another 7 months?
As for the ad, it certainly appears to be an in-kind contribution, at least, to an openly partisan organization. I’d like to see some really sharp lawyers go to work on this one…
Comment by Great White Rat @ 9/13/2007 - 3:45 pm
There *may* be a legitimate reason for this…prices are often adjusted according to the seller’s estimate of what the traffic will bear. I understand that Guiliani has requested the same rate, so perhaps the NYT response will shed some light on the matter.
If the ad was discounted because of political factors, then there’s another issue in addition to the in-kind political contribution, and that’s fiduciary responsibility. What right do executives have to turn down money (that belongs to the shareholders) based on personal political beliefs?
Comment by david foster @ 9/13/2007 - 4:35 pm
From the NY Post article ST cited on this:
True….the only difference between MorOn.org and the NYT editorialists is that Pinch has the latter clean up their language.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 9/13/2007 - 6:19 pm
Chemistry Lesson ignorantly bleated:
Maybe he/she/it should have actually looked up the respective LAWS before spouting off in typical liberalspeak fashion:
This from Taranto in the WSJ. Oops, forgot, Chemistry Lesson will just bleat that the WSJ is a neocon mouthpiece, ignoring the facts of the law, the same law that the Times is generally so hot to promote, the campaign finance reform laws. Hey, they are for the most part unconstitutional, no wonder the Times likes them, but as is also typical, it’s do as I say not as I do hypocrisy from the left.
Comment by Severian @ 9/13/2007 - 8:47 pm
Reason it was done and allowed, THEY HATE BUSH AND WANT US DEFEATED IN IRAQ AND WANTS THE DEMS IN ….
PERIOD.
Comment by Drewsmom @ 9/14/2007 - 6:23 am
Whoa Nellie!
Folks, we have the answer. It’s good to know that the Times may be liberal, but it sure ain’t dumb enough to break the laws.
So as I originally assumed, the “standby” is apparently the newspaper ad equivalent of buying in bulk in the world of merchandising.
Read it in context, please, at the Times Website. Here’s a link.
LINK
So will the right wing now please damp down the emo and refocus the noise machine on the next item on its agenda.
And will the left wing now please damp down the emo and refocus the hate machine on the next item on its agenda.
And will the rest of us kindly consider Occam, and remember that when they hear offbeats behind them, it’s odds-on to be a horse, not a zebra, who’s coming their way.
Comment by Leslie @ 9/14/2007 - 10:07 am
Did Guiliani get an ad at the Movon price?? Anyone know?? - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 9/14/2007 - 10:11 am
Leslie, Occam would surely want us to consider the context. If you’re in a zoo, and the zoo is known for its large population of zebras, then the hoofbeats may *not* be horses….
Comment by david foster @ 9/14/2007 - 10:14 am
Leslie, Mathis’ statement doesn’t convince me, especially considering they have rejected advocacy ads that the National Right to Life and Swift Boat Vets both have respectively wanted to run in the past.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 9/14/2007 - 11:01 am
And we all just know that the NYT never lies.
Comment by Severian @ 9/14/2007 - 11:17 am
- Just so we’re perfectly clear: Nobody is accusing the NYT of being impartial or unbiased.
- BBH -
(Footnote: “standby” rates are offered when an ad space is not being bid on at a brisk rate to insure sales. It means that it stands as long as no one else bids higher. with 100’s of ad managers fighting for ad space this appears to be a lame attempt at CYA, or maybe this is what Hillery was alluding to the other day with her “suspending disbelief” comment.
- Rudi’s ad was posed to run today, apparently at the same rate. We’ll see. ST has some aditional events on this dustup to follow)
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 9/14/2007 - 11:36 am
Ohhhhh so if it is a slow Ad day, they give that price to anyone. Not cuz they want to do favors for people they identify with. I will believe that as soon as I get my “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” apology.
Is there a hold my breath Emo that turns blue?? I could really use one right now. 
- Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 9/14/2007 - 1:16 pm
Truth in advertising and yes………..the Honorable General has de facto *betrayed* them (read - not us). By them, I refer to the al-qaeda allied elements fostered by Moron.org and the DBM’s insipid reports, rife with lies and inuendo. Enemies of the US have been exposed and by doing so concievably a form of betrayal is directed towards them. But enough about the Congress critters with a *D* in front of their name…….
Essentially, when the truths are known proper judgement can rule the day, not emotional BDS kneejerk reactions.
Didn’t the dhimmicRats request this report/hearings?
Have any of these D’s ever thought to ask what it is that they could do to expedite a successfull mission in the ME or the WOT in general?
Comment by forest hunter @ 9/14/2007 - 2:07 pm
just when you thought the ny times and moveon.org couldn’t go any lower, they’ve sunk to new lows
Comment by G-Monster @ 9/14/2007 - 2:39 pm
Somebody has to point out that Petraeus is a brown nose. If we really had a free press in the U.S., Pretraeus’ track record as an administration shill would have been obvious–c.f. his infamous Op/ed just before the 2004 election.
Everything touched by Bush et. al. becomes corrupted, but self-promoting military officers with political ambitions of their own don’t take a lot of corrupting.
Comment by Jim Harrison @ 9/14/2007 - 3:55 pm
self-promoting military officers with political ambitions of their own don’t take a lot of corrupting.
Stick to the topic, Jim. We’re not talking about Wesley Clark here.
Comment by Great White Rat @ 9/14/2007 - 4:35 pm
- Jim……the Left just did a masterful crack back block on the Dems, and I’m not so sure they didn’t do it to “punish” their lap dog party unfaithfuls, who have not been able to force the US out of Iraq. After all, as they themselves put it: “We bought and payed for it, now its ours.”
- Oh. And BDS is so yesterday. You need to brush up on the talking points.
- Make nice, or Hillery may refuse to give you your “jewels” back.
- BBH -
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 9/14/2007 - 4:55 pm
So, Jim, since you know so much about the military men in charge, and apparently their careers, who do you think would have given a fair and honest report about what’s going on in Iraq?
Of course, judging by your propaganda speech that would obviously be someone who agrees with you.
Comment by NC Cop @ 9/14/2007 - 4:57 pm
Actually I was just reading an opinion piece on Gen. Petraus, and in it, he clearly states from the onset of this war, which Petraus was there from the very beginning, that he is uncertain who was going to win and what exactly the end was going to be like. This is the right man for the job, and he is doing what he has established his military career in. Read his bio in Wikipedia. This man was shot in the chest during a live fire exercise and returned to his command a few days later. The more I read about him, the more impressed I am by him. - Lorica
LINK
Comment by Lorica @ 9/14/2007 - 5:59 pm
Buhbye, loser.
Comment by Jim Harrison @ 9/14/2007 - 7:23 pm
Now that Rudy got his ad what how fast Hillary and Obama whine for theirs. - Lorica
Comment by Lorica @ 9/15/2007 - 1:14 pm