Does this make MoveOn or the New York Times any more credible in your book?

Question

MoveOn.org has paid the New York Times $77,508 after the newspaper confirmed that its ad department had undercharged the group for its controversial ad that called General David Petraeus “General Betray Us.”

The New York Post had disclosed that the Times charged the left-wing group only about $65,000 for the full-page ad, while the “open rate” for such an ad is $181,000.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/MoveOn_pays_Times/2007/09/26/35887.html

So... if I do the math... $65,000.00 + $77,508.00 = $142,508.00.

That still equals a near $40,000.00 discount. I don't really care what kind of a discount the NYT gives anyone. It is their business and they can conduct it as they please. As long as they don't cry about the outcome when people will continue to cancel subscribership do to their eargerness to support the fringe left. It was classless to run the add in the first place and I would not have done it were it my company. They do have the right to refuse business.

Steve... try and keep up here... I'll type slowly for you. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GEORGE BUSH. Not everything does. It has to do with a classless organization throwing a 4 Star General, who has served this country through Democrat and Republican Presidents for over 40 years, under the bus because HIS report didn't fit their agenda and a rag like the NYT eagerly wanting to help. Can you comprehend this?

clk... um... I was uh... talking about the credibility that uh... I was going to say that page teo would follow page one, but I'm not sure they would get that right. Thanks for pointing out the flaw. I guess I am not so Perfect after all... LOL

Answer 1

For the New York Times, they will now have to give that discount rate to full page ads from those on the right as well. Otherwise, they'll run afoul of the soft money restrictions.

Answer 2

I can definitely comprehend this even if it really stinks! I'm also ecstatic that this happened! The New York times has shown it's true liberal bull s**t colors and when Rudi Gulianni wanted a page for rebuttal, he was charged full price!!!! So much for that fairness doctrine huh? General Patreaus was a hero and deserves respect because he has it from the men and women who serve under him! Kinda makes any emotional knee jerk reaction useless to those with a brain. I said it once before and I'll say it again since there are some liberals here who have a hard time grasping facts.... "I would like our soldiers out of Iraq now, however I have to put my emotional response on the side and take it from those who are in the boots on the ground. If they say they are making progress, I'll trust their judgement!" With that said, I'm totally pissed with how George Bush went into this war! We had the truth from Professionals in Bush's cabinet that said outright, You can't fight this war unless you use 350,000 to 400,000 troops to close the borders, retrain the Republican Guard, restore the infrastructure and give the people the right to vote. Who said that? Colin Powell, John Shinsecki, Wesley Clark, John Howard and another I can't remember. Bush went in with total disregard for those around him who knew what they were talking about, true. But we are there now and the Iraqi people must realise that their country is worth fighting for. I doubt whether most liberals in this country would feel the same way! I think every citizen and immigrant who wants to be part of this society should have to serve 2 years in the military! Maybe then we would not have so much apathy toward electing competent leaders and getting them to listen to us. 2008 is coming and I really miss Senator Barry Goldwater! Barry, you were and always will be a class act! I miss you too Ronald Reagan! You weren't perfect, but you were genuine.

Answer 3

The NY Times readership is at its lowest point in ten years. They are apparently trying to emulate Air America, only in print rather than radio.
Along with MoveOn.Org - they just don't get it - mainstream America isn't buying into their vile and disgusting rhetoric despite their well financed agenda. This far left nonsense is doing the democrats a great disservice - Hillary won't even denounce the ad for fear of the back lash she'll get - how in hell would she deal with foreign leaders who want to destroy this country if she can't even stand up to a web site? Anyone with half a brain can see what the far left is doing - they are trying their damndest to discredit anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their lame agendas.
I support Bush - and the left says I am a sheep - but I don't mind - these comments come from the same people who find nothing wrong with Americans bad mouthing America in foreign countries - find nothing wrong with a senator publicly declaring that we have lost the war in Iraq while our troops are on the front lines and in harms way - think it's OK to slam a true patriot because he's not singing from their hymn book and even to this day can't understand why more people didn't vote for John "habitual liar" Kerry.
Wake up, democrats, and speak up - your party is being trashed by the far left loonies.

Answer 4

The issue is more of an ethical issue rather than anything else. I don't agree with the ad they ran. I hate it. But the fact of the matter is that they had every right to run it. And you're right, any reader offended by this decision can cancel their subscription.

Having studied journalism, I can say that they are in the wrong because the did offer a $40,000 discount to moveon.org to further their political beliefs. A news paper is supposed to contain news stories with a fair view on both sides of an issue. With the exception of the opinion section, they are supposed to remain neutral. Offering this discount only adds to their bias. Had they charged the full amount for the add, I wouldn't have a problem with the decision they made (again, despite the fact that I hate this ad that moveon.org posted.)

Answer 5

If the NY Times had any shame, it would be a shame! Add that to the list of infractions inlcuding but not limited to helping Al Queda by exposing classified programs designed to fight terror.

I love how Scooter Libby gets accused of the crime of exposing classified information but people like Sandy Burger, and God knows who leaked the terror surveilance program is roaming around free and unblemished.

Answer 6

They did that because they got caught,no other reason,this is just their way to try and pretend this was just some great error,not the obvious bias that it is. They NYT enjoys the freedom of the press which gives them a great deal of freedom in this country that the media in many other countries do not get,with that freedom comes the responsibility to be unbiased and fair. That is however something most of the media has not been for over 40 years.

Jack

Answer 7

The media is dying a slow painful death.
Slow because it's not dying fast enough and painful because they hurt those of us who still rely on them for our news.

And besides aren't they a Monopoly?

Why would we want to believe anything that the media reports or says when all of them march to the tune of the same drummer?

Personally I couldn't care less what any of them have to say on any topic because their depravity and corruption is absolute.

Answer 8

any more credible? this whole issue really hasn't effected my opinion... it's ads... they'll sell them to everyone... and ads aren't news... and have no editorial restrictions for most papers

and ad rates are very negotiable... it's a business and prices are rarely static and can depend on many variables...

I thought conservatives understood business?

and it seems like most people who are upset are those that never would have had a subscription in the first place?

it's like a liberal crying about Rush... saying he won't listen anymore... when he doesn't listen now?

Answer 9

An editor at the NYT admitted that the paper broke its own rules by accepting a "hateful" political ad that was targeted at an individual.

The paper's own policies condemn the use of ads for name-calling. Name-calling does not enhance discussion according to the paper.

It's interesting when an editor admits that his own paper failed to keep its own policies? Why did they break their own rules? Probably because somebody at the paper will do anything --- even violating rules --- to help push a left-wing, liberal agenda.

Sad? Sick?

Answer 10

I have never heard the words credible used with either of these organizations.


If anyone defends them they are basically saying freedom of speech means they can do whatever they want whenever they want without consequencs, and that the media can control the masses without any objections or consequences, they ( NY Times & Moveon.org) might as well be run by Hitler, if they are preaching instead of providing information for the public interest.