Does the New York times give discounts to ALL groups that hate America or just liberals?

Question

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1332355120070913?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

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's 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."

Answer 1

RLP, after reading the posts that precede mine I wanted to say most of the posters failed to read the link you had on your post. It shows the absolute denial that exists in the liberals of our great country.
I have a spouse who is a liberal because she was born and breed that way. She doesn't understand the simple complexity of one thing as to why she calls herself a liberal only to say that to her my being a conservative is a catching point. I am doing my best to deprogramming 45 years of brainwashing, but it takes time. Time we may not have if this country continues on it's current track.
Very few who call themselves liberals have ever once read the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers or Articles of Conferation, let alone understand that in it's original context our government was and is established as a REPUBLIC and not a democracy. It is an elected republic. Originally the Senate (until a questionable amendment to the bill of rights was passed) the 17th Amendment, state legislators chose the Senate. I believe we need to return to that.



Considering the payment was for $65000 and the NYT's Normal Full Page Rate is $180000 I'd say yes The NYT is giving special dispensation to their primary audience the liberals.

I believe most US Newspapers are now the propaganda wing of the extreme left in this country, 1st the NYT is something I'd rarely read unless I was in an outhouse and it didn't have TP.

While I am all for "Free" speech, I believe it's time for the sheeple to understand the absolute insanity that comprises the Left in this country.

George Soros, et.al, are Socialists, it is their goal to reduce the viability of OUR republic into a democracy when and then they can have the Socialistic bureaucracies assume control.
We have been sliding that way since the "New Deal of FDR"..

Alexander Tyler said in 1787 Democracies are temporary.
About the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature ; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years.
During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. >From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage "

Answer 2

Why on Earth would you assume that liberals hate America? I am telling you as a liberal that no liberals I know hate America, in fact they love America and want to do what is best for it. The disagreements on what is best for the nation are the cause of conservatives and liberals insisting that the other hates America. Frankly, it is meaningless political rhetoric meant to rally members of the opposing philosophies to hate each other. By definition, democracy and patriotism are liberal. Change is the foundation of liberalism; patriotism is the fight for fundamental change, not the upholding of existing status quos. Since when have any legitimate liberals supported terrorism? Since when have any Americans (save the Westboro Baptist Church, which is radically Christian and conservative) been anything but horrified and completely against any and all kinds of terrorism? I can assure you that I do not "support " any terrorist or Marxist revolutionaries. Considering that all change is inherently liberal, I am afraid that you are mistaken in saying that liberalism always leads to "dependence, mediocrity and moral decay". That is like saying that conservatism invariably leads to fascism, which is completely false. Liberals are not crazy, they simply have beliefs different than your own, is that so wrong? If we are wrong, we must have the courage to admit it, and be able to not only accept criticism, but also to self-criticize. After all, if we do not recognize our faults, how can we expect to counter them? There are times when complete and unwavering support for your country are misguided. For example, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and if we aren't careful, in Iran and Pakistan as well): I do not in any sense whatever support the idea or the fact of war in the Middle East. I support our troops for serving the country so valiantly, but that doesn't mean I have to support their purpose there. Why would you ignore what we do wrong simply to prove your loyalty? Aren't true intelligence and loyalty born from an open mind and a willingness to accept when you or the target of your loyalty are wrong? Live long and prosper.

Answer 3

I am not a big fan of either the New York Times or Move-On,org but doubt that either "hate America". They just have a different idea of what America should be like. I don't accuse you , for example, of "hating America" just because your support an administration who's fiscal irresponsibility has left us heavily indebted to foreign interests.

Now, on to the ad...

According to the NYT website, non-profits get a discount off of "rack-rate" (or full retail). Frequent customers (of which Move-On is one) get a further discount. Those who "buy in bulk" get a further discount.

Did the ad run worldwide or just in the US? The figure listed ($181,692 ) is for worldwide distribution. If it ran only in the US, the rate would be significantly lower ($678 per column inch as opposed to $1325 per column inch worldwide).

So, $678x126column inches=$85428 less standard 8% discount for full page=$78593.76.

So, got about a 17% discount, assuming the ad ran only in the US. I usually save closer to 20% if I buy in bulk.

Of course, I'm sure a media watchdog like yourself was just as angry with all the FREE airtime FOX News gave to the Swift Boat Veterans a few years ago. Or when they broadcast "Dangerous Places", basically a campaign ad by Newt Gingrich. Or when they broadcast "Vanishing Freedoms 2", a right-wing attack ad against the UN. All free of charge.

No?

Answer 4

This is, of course, not possible for any of us to answer unless we work in the advertising department of the NY Times. My local newspaper is Republican owned and I agree that if a paper has a political agenda it should be transparent. I though the link you gave was good and the comparison to the UK Guardian was apt in the article. I can live with slanted journalism, but I resent it when the media pretends to be unbiased when they are not. I don't care about bias, but I care about hiding bias. Incidently, the NY Times stock values have plummeted today. It's becoming worthless as an investment and its a failing newspaper.

Answer 5

I guess not all can meet the journalist independence of Haliburton Tv ( WGOP aka fox news ) I suppose you feel the folks at moveon.org are enemy combatants and not intitled to freedom of press.

Personally i feel that the General "Betrayus" ad is in poor taste as will be Bush's speech that he won't pay a dime to have aired printed.

Answer 6

..bottom line... a company cannot show discrimination in anyway...and giving a lower amount to print to a person (by the way a multi billionaire) is against the law...

...but then, they favor the "breaking the rule" party, so what do they have to fear?....just another example that the rules are only for the Republicans...or any other person who has morals...so
...hope someone does benefit by getting another add for a lower amount...serves them right!

...as for the General...maybe he ought to think twice about risking his life for these idiots!

Answer 7

Can you cite their actual advertising rates? It is possible that this was part of a larger ad buy which might affect the per unit rate. It is also possible that they might have negotiated a rate based upon what they had to sell at the time. Everything is open to negotiation in business.

Answer 8

Cons are so funny.

I don't know which joke is the best, your assuming that every group you don't agree with is shacked up with us evil liberals,

or thinking that liberals hate America because you're ignorant of their positions or you're a Bible thumper.

Sucks to be you.

Answer 9

I am afraid that Rudi will find out that it is only for the hate America first crowd...Why not change the name to the Liberal Times of New York!

Wow! so many from the Democrat underground and the Daily Kos here...don't you have flags to burn and soldiers to disrespect down at the local evil WalMart?

Answer 10

Yes they do. Also not printing an ad can also be construed as censorship and against the first amendment. You're not against the Constitution are you?

The opposing group is more than welcome to run opposing ads in the NYTimes too, FYI.