TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR 'BETRAY US' AD

NY Post ^ | September 13, 2007 | CHARLES HURT

[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-

[TommyDale]

$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

[vetsvette]

If I were a regular advertiser in Pravda West, I’d be pretty pissed, knowing that I was subsidizing Moveon and their traitorous activities.

[tomnbeverly]

Simply Treasonous.

[Vaquero]

Like I posted in another thread about the NYT:

That little “Pinch” and his turlit paper, needs a serious attitude adjustment.

[Tennessean4Bush]

If I was advertising in the NYT, I'd instruct my ad department to not pay a dime more than MoveOn paid. We all know now how far they will drop their pants.

Of course, if I advertised in the NYT I'd be part of a dying breed bent on extinction.

[maxter]

Busted!! They better get ready to give discounts to other advertisers.

[Red Badger]

They must have had a coupon...............

[<1/1,000,000th%]

We need the Fairness Doctrine for newspapers. /sarcasm

[adorno]

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.

[Alberta's Child]

This is exactly why that Campaign Finance Reform law was such a farce.

[ClearCase_guy]

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.

[George W. Bush]

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."

What is the "open rate" in the newspaper business? Anyone know?

[RavenATB]

This means that the Times has become an active partner with MoveOn.org in smearing General Petraeus, one of the finest military officers the US has produced in the past generation. In fact, the Times contributed more money (value) to smearing the general than did MoveOn.org.

Despicable.

[pnh102]

Brothers in arms.

[mnehring]

This article gives a lot of information on national advertising rates for full page ads.

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

[George W. Bush]

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

[adorno]

$116,000 is a considerable donation for the Times to MoveOn.org

That huge discount is money that moveon.org will now be able to use for donations to the democratic party. So, indirectly, the NYTimes is essentially contributing that money to a candidate of moveon.org's choosing. It's even entirely possible that the NYTimes may have indicated that the savings be contributed to a candidate of their choice. Hmm... a conspiracy between the NYTimes and moveon.org?

[finnman69]

anything that causes the NY Slimes to lose revenue is a good thing

[FormerACLUmember]

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.