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 ...
I give up. Because they need to own shares in NYT to bump their I-hate-Bush-more-than-you-do creds?
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.
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.
The New York Times admitting the obvious, they always give preferential treatment to liberals.
Blue markings on munitions indicate training devices.
>>>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.
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
Pravda on the Hudson is lying again!
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.