Put it way up in the upper left corner. We've got enough for now but I'm sure we'll use it sometime in the future.
Posted on 09/24/2007 7:41:08 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
After two weeks of denials, the New York Times acknowledged that it should not have given a discount to MoveOn.org for a full-page advertisement assailing Gen. David H. Petraeus. The liberal advocacy group should have paid $142,000 for the ad calling the U.S. commander in Iraq "General Betray Us," not $65,000, the paper's public editor wrote yesterday.
Clark Hoyt said in his column that MoveOn was not entitled to the cheaper "standby" rate for advertising that can run any time over the following week because the Times did promise that the ad would run Sept. 10, the day Petraeus began his congressional testimony. "We made a mistake," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis was quoted as saying.
MoveOn, saying it had no reason to believe it was paying "anything other than the normal and usual charge," said yesterday that it would send the Times $77,000 to make up the difference.
The Times also violated its own advertising policy, which bars "attacks of a personal nature," Hoyt reported. He wrote that the episode "gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the 'liberal media.'.. "
On Thursday, President Bush called the ad "disgusting," saying that "most Democrats . . . are more afraid of irritating [MoveOn] than they are of irritating the United States military."
On Friday, the Senate voted 75 to 25 to denounce the ad. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic presidential front-runner, was questioned repeatedly about the ad yesterday while taping interviews with all five Sunday talk shows...
The group told its 3 million members by e-mail that some might think "the language went too far. . . . But make no mistake: this is much bigger than one ad."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Have you ever noticed that the MSM (CNN, NYT, ect) always seem to make mistakes that favor liberals and their causes?
Put it way up in the upper left corner. We've got enough for now but I'm sure we'll use it sometime in the future.
BUT OUR INTENTIONS WERE GOOD!
bump
On the other hand, the NY Times now has to go out and make arrangements to get the full price for this ad because they'd be facing a heap of trouble of they don't. The negative PR side of this is only one angle to it. Because they are a publicly-traded corporation, the real problem they face is a huge pile of massive lawsuits from shareholders who rightly wonder what the hell is going on with the management of that newspaper.
Nice to see our side hitting back.
"Clinton said she did not approve of personal attacks from any quarter but avoided criticizing MoveOn by name."
...and it's especially nice that our attacks are so perfectly on-target.
Their ad rates are a matter of public record. The fact that the ad rates aren’t a secret is what started this entire controversy in the first place. If you believe that MoveOn didn’t know they were getting a preferential rate, then I have a bridge for sale that I’d like to offer you. Everyone involved in this deal has been lying from the start, and now it has come out in the wash. MoveOn is trying to persuade the casual observer that it did not demand special treatment for its attack ad, and was just one more advertising customer. The New York Times is just trying to put an acceptable face on it to prevent every advocacy group in the country with which they disagree from demanding the same rate discount. As for the New York Times’ reputation, there hasn’t been one to lose since the mid-70s. And due to the ownership structure of the newspaper, there isn’t a damn thing shareholders can do about it.
True. And this goes a long way toward explaining the NYT stock price. Let's see: circulation is down, ad revenue is down, the print industry as a whole is down, the price of a share is going down, and the ownership structure of the company makes it so that a shareholder can't have any real input into how the business is run ...
Why would anyone own such a stock?
This would seem a logical place to point out how she voted...
“Have you ever noticed that the MSM (CNN, NYT, ect) always seem to make mistakes that favor liberals and their causes?”
I have noticed it for decades, all media mistakes are in a direction that favor liberalism.
>>On Friday, the Senate voted 75 to 25 to denounce the ad. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic presidential front-runner, was questioned repeatedly about the ad yesterday while taping interviews with all five Sunday talk shows...
>This would seem a logical place to point out how she voted...
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934 )
Vote Number: 344 Vote Date: September 20, 2007, 12:36 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2934 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.
Vote Counts: YEAs 72
NAYs 25
Not Voting 3
...
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
NYSlimes Position on the ad: “Mistake, but Accurate.”
Just to add more info, here’s a list of all the nays and no votes.
NAYs -—25
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 3
Biden (D-DE)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Anybody else note any “odd” trends, say in the party affiliations?
The Gray Lady is just an old, wrinkled, incontinent, windbag.
bttt
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.