Posted on 09/24/2007 11:26:41 PM PDT by indcons
NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times' ombudsman says the newspaper violated its standards when it gave the liberal activist group MoveOn.org a $77,508 price break on a full-page advertisement targeting Gen. David Petraeus.
The organization paid $64,575, instead of the standard $142,083, for the ad questioning the war in Iraq, public editor Clark Hoyt wrote in a column published Sunday.
Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis told Hoyt that an advertising sales representative should have agreed either to the lower price or the date the group requested the ad would run, but not both. Buying an ad with a guaranteed publication date costs more than buying one that might run any day within a given range, she told The Associated Press.
"We made a mistake," she told Hoyt.
The ad also seemed to disregard internal advertising standards that ban ads involving attacks of a personal nature, Hoyt wrote.
Mathis told the AP the newspaper does not disclose prices or arrangements offered to specific advertisers.
MoveOn.org said in a news release it would wire the difference in the ad rates to the Times.
"While we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad," said Eli Pariser, MoveOn's political action executive director.
Pariser added that MoveOn negotiated a price it thought was the Times' normal rate. "There is no evidence of any kind that the error in quoting of rates was in any way based on the content of the advertisement or the identity of its sponsor," Pariser said.
The full-page ad was printed in the Sept. 10 editions, the day Petraeus appeared before Congress to warn against a rapid withdrawal from Iraq. The ad's headline — "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" — questioned his honesty and said he was "constantly at war with the facts" in giving positive assessments of the war.
"The ad infuriated conservatives, dismayed many Democrats and ignited charges that the liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org with a steep discount in the price paid to publish its message," Hoyt wrote.
Hoyt said he was asked to investigate the ad rate by FreedomsWatch.org, which advocates a strong national defense and a powerful fight against terrorism, because it said it wasn't offered a similar rate.
Pariser told Hoyt his group had called three days before the ad ran and asked to place it. He said MoveOn was told the ad would cost $65,000 and that the ad would run on Sept. 10 as it had requested.
"We paid this rate before, so we recognized it," Pariser told the Times.
Mathis told Hoyt the newspaper's advertising representative failed to make clear that the Times could not guarantee the Monday placement for the reduced rate but left MoveOn with the understanding that the ad would run then.
"That was contrary to our policies," she said.
Freedom's Watch president Bradley A. Blakeman praised Hoyt for criticizing the paper's ad policy, and said it had paid a similar, reduced rate for an ad blasting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance Monday at Columbia University.
That full-page ad, headlined "Ahmadinejad is a terrorist," appeared in Monday's editions. Blakeman said his group did not receive a guarantee that it would run on the date it had sought.
"We paid this rate before, so we recognized it," Pariser told the Times.
it wasn’t a mistake. move-on paid a lot of money for something the NY Times would write themselves for their op-ed
As usual, these MSM “mistakes” never favor Republicans or conservatives. Hmmmmmmm.....
How do you negotiate something that you think you already know?
Interesting indeed, but mainly in terms of the fact that they actually admitted it.
As to their 'admission' to this 'mistake', I suppose we can attribute the multi-week time frame between the printing of the ad and instant uproar associated with it and yesterday to be the length of time it takes to focus-group the response, have attorneys analyze it for litigious holes and for ad-agencies to offer alternate proposals that would leave less cow-dung on their shoes.
The fact that they released this statement suggests that they don't think that there's any lasting downside to this issue at all, considering that most people have already forgotten who Jayson Blair is.
Ha-ha!, what standards?
This "ombudsman" is living in the '60s, back when the New York Times was viewed as a reputable newspaper.
Oh, yes....a mistake.
The fact is that they are as crooked and dishonest as a press source can get. It’s strange that MoveOn the NYT and Dan Rather are all squaking at the same time.
So, out of the goodness of their hearts, the MoveOn mice are wiring $77,000 to the New York Times? Even though they don't have to?? Ha-haaa! Right... That's laughable. They are ALL lying, every last one of these scumbags.
We’re deeply sorry we got caught. Now look the other way so we can do it again.
The real reason the Ombudsman for the NYTimes had to come out with the we made a mistake and gave a discount when we shouldn’t have line, is that the NYTs would now have to give that same discount to everyone placing an AD in the future. Now, they couldn’t have that, could they. They are already losing money hand over fist at their paper, and their stock is in the dumpster, so the last thing they need is for everyone to line up demanding the same rate as MoveOn got. Just like Rudy Guiliani did when he placed his AD and insisted upon getting the same rate that MoveOn had received. The NYT would be more broke than they already are. Follow the money. This didn’t come out in order to do a mea culpa politically, it came out so they could keep their rates at their normal high level and get the word out what the “real” rate was, rather than the phony discounted one. It’s just so obvious to me.
It was an illegal ‘In Kind’ donation, to a partisan political organisation. It was an illegal and criminal act. An investigation must be conducted to see if this act was singular in nature or if it is only one of a pattern of illegal ‘in kind’ donations made by the owners and operatives of the New York Times newspaper to support the Democrat political agenda. The books must be checked.
“”We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” Pariser told the Times.”
...there are other shoes to fall.
Yup it was a mistake, it wasa mistake to let anyone find out about it.
Let’s have an accounting of just how many times this “mistake” has occurred in the past.
Beyond the price paid, I don’t think the NY Times would even consider publishing an add that was this radical from the right side of the isle.
Papers have been biased toward one side or the other since they were invented, I’m sure. This isn’t the first time of course.
It’s just that today the media cannot provide one side of the issues, and keep the populace in the dark about the other side.
Despite this, the NY Times and other papers continue to act as if they can, and they have radicalized themselves to the point that nobody will by their paper, if they have even the slightest shred of sanity left.
The NY Times is feeling the heat folks. They’re dancing on pins and needles over this issue. It just may doom the paper. It should.
Off topic but with a tie-in, the Columbia University presenter before Irans tyrant addressed the crowd yesterday, expressed some pretty strong views. IMO, Columbia University was skewered by calls and alumnists disagreeing with the decision to let him talk.
It seems folks with normal views are beginning to become involved over issues these days. And the leftist institutions are feeling the heat. It’s about time.
NYT Says MoveOn Ad Was `mistake’....
the nyslimes is a mistake!!!
Seems more like deliberate malfeasance to me. And a violation of the law.
“MoveOn.org said in a news release it would wire the difference in the ad rates to the Times.”
What about fines and penalties? Sounds like Moveon’s lawyers must be telling them that a grand jury is looking at them.
Let’s hope it was imcompetance. If NYT routinely makes such “mistakes” we will sooner than later be rid of them.
Hmm... MoveOn self-servingly quotes Howard Wolfson (dropping the other, Hsu); what a coincidental pair of lies! Or was that Howard Wolfson as puppeteer in the MoveOn case, too?
HF
Yes indeedy.
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.