New York Times Says It Violated Policies Over MoveOn Ad

Washington Post ^ | September 24, 2007 | Howard Kurtz

[libs_kma]

"Why would anyone own such a stock?"

I give up. Because they need to own shares in NYT to bump their I-hate-Bush-more-than-you-do creds?

[Ditto]

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.'.. "

We were way overstocked with ammo already, but in fighting the "Living Dead" Zombies of the MSM, I guess having a little more can't hurt.

[3AngelaD]

We have so much that there are ammunition depots across the country full to the brim with New York Times-bashing materials, much of which dates back to the war in Vietnam when the Leftists accomplished their takeover of our country and its media.

[ops33]

The New York Times admitting the obvious, they always give preferential treatment to liberals.

[ops33]

Blue markings on munitions indicate training devices.

[Calpernia]

>>>MoveOn.org may really have had no reason to know what the “normal” ad rate was. If I were to call the NY Times and they quoted a price to me for advertising, I’d have no way of knowing whether I was paying a “normal” or “discounted” rate.

I don’t know if this is what happened; but, anytime I want to run an ad in a publication or radio venue, the first thing the media outlet does is send me a media kit. The media kit lists all their ad options with pricing.

[maine-iac7]

If it takes this long for the NYT to realize they made a mistakes on their policy of selling adds

I have an idea it took about as long as some big advertisers to let them know they wouldn't be advertising for a while - added to, it just may be violating law for a newspaper to aid and abet such slander = of anyone, let alone a General in the midst of a war???

By giving them more than 50 percent off, they were, basically, running the ad pro bono...which makes them an active partner

[puroresu]

Pravda on the Hudson is lying again!