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
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 ...
$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
Simply Treasonous.
That little “Pinch” and his turlit paper, needs a serious attitude adjustment.
Of course, if I advertised in the NYT I'd be part of a dying breed bent on extinction.
Busted!! They better get ready to give discounts to other advertisers.
They must have had a coupon...............
We need the Fairness Doctrine for newspapers. /sarcasm
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.
This is exactly why that Campaign Finance Reform law was such a farce.
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.
Despicable.
Brothers in arms.
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
anything that causes the NY Slimes to lose revenue is a good thing
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.
“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.
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.
Wow, I guess the cows at moooooveon actually demanded that their rate be based on REAL circulation numbers. Amazing.
How is Sulzberger different than say, William Randolph Hearst?
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.
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!
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...)
I think even some Democrats thought this was disgusting.....in my DREAMS!!!
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.
"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.
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.
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)
Who can then get the same discount from the NYT and make the money stretch even further...
I wonder if the TIMES would give Free Republic the same discount. Hmmmm?
That’s quite a sack of balls she’s got!
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).
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.
sickening
Damned coffee spray!
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Fox reporting about the discount.
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.
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.