Took 'Em Long Enough
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
No doubt all the people who need to explain the MoveOn price break at the Times also were pleased by reports MoveOn had been given a discount. That, apparently, is not the actual case:
Advocacy groups seeking to place a single, full-page, black-and-white ad in The New York Times on "standby" over a seven-day period — the paper picks the day — pays what MoveOn did, $64,575, sources said.
The New York Post reported that The New York Times charges a higher rate, $181,692, setting up erroneous reports that MoveOn got a "lefty" discount. But the higher price is for ads guaranteed to run on a specific day, said New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis.
How kind of the Times to make sure they had an open slot on the day Petraeus's testimony ran so MoveOn could make its ad more timely.
Of course, considering the discord among the Dems since then, we should probably be thanking the Times.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | MSNBC cheats John Edwards — Comments (12) »
Took 'Em Long Enough 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
So let me get this straight... You attack the NYT with incomplete facts, then when you find out that you were wrong you attack them for the day on which the ad was run? I am a middle of the road guy and I hate that ad, but Moveon has the right of free speach, no matter how stupid what they say is.
It would be nice to have you actually say that your original post was not accurate in it's facts without just finding a new angle of attack. It's totally fair to go after moveon and the NYT for what you disagree with them. Just don't demean it by making it sound all conspriatorial. Like the evil liberals are sitting around the NYT board room concoting plots to destroy America. The world is just not that simple.
Please don't see this as an attack you, but seriously that's the kind of thing that makes genuine political discussion really hard to achieve in this day and age.
Classic leftist dishonest dodge. The original question was "Why did they run the ad at all, instead of using their freedom of the press right to reject it?"
That question still stands.
Another question is "Why aren't the Democrats in the press condemning it?"
That question still stands.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
Occams Scalpel still holds. Erik some it up very succinctly. Where is the evidence that there was any other day considered for this Adv. Where is the evidence that there was an unused page for this Adv to run on ?
Sorry what you have is the Times saying its customary and MoveOn just happened to beat 7 to 1 odds to have its Adv run for maximum effect.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If you would just argue your point without trying to deny where you're coming from, you'd have a better chance of being taken seriously.
I am a middle of the road guy ...
Isn't that how leftists always see themselves? Anybody to the right of Dennis Kucinich is a centrist or conservative.
... and I hate that ad, but Moveon has the right of free speach, no matter how stupid what they say is.
See, even in the very same sentence where you claim to be "middle of the road", you fall into classic left-think: when somebody criticizes some leftists' statement, and points out evidence questioning their truthfullness, you suspect them of of trying to deny free speech rights. Where did the OP ever suggest that the government should censor the MoveOn ad?
making it sound all conspriatorial. Like the evil liberals are sitting around the NYT board room concoting plots to destroy America.
More "Conservatives in the Mist" caricatures of the way people you disagree with think. Where did the OP ever suggest there was a conspiracy? It's the "mainstream" of the Democratic side that buys into Vast Right Wing Conspiracy theories.
It certianly was not meant to be a dodge, and yes yours is a legitimate question; but don't you think that it is a harder question than you might believe. Any major US paper always has to deal with questions of censorship etc. when looking at something as clearly partisan as this ad was. I don't think it would have been fair for the NYT to say that they would not print the ad. Just ask yourself what you would be saying if a clearly right leaning group created an ad the NYT refused to run.
My only point is not to attack the poster, but to point out that we can have this sort of discussion without voicing some sort of a liberal conspiricy.
I have read this blog often and have just joined to voice some of my thoughts. Don't lump me in as being a "leftist" because I don't happen to agree with you. And I certianly don't apreciate being called dishonest. I just didn't believe that given the tone of the earlier post (which had false information geared to tar and feather the NYT) that this post needed to be of the same tone.
I don't believe that this has lived up to the standards that i have seen often here.
When people I don't recognize pop in and start railing against us, or against the front page posters specifically, there's a presumption of trolldom in my book.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.
"which had false information geared to tar and feather the NYT"
I have seen some discrepancy about the pricing in that the cheaper price was for a full page black and white ad without a set publication date. Funny how it ran on the EXACT date as the generals report and that the ad had wording in it speaking to the generals report being given THAT day.....sooooo what false info?
Sorry but it's hard for us not to be cynical of a newspaper
as partisan as that rag.
of course, pinko rags like the NYT don't think of it as lying because it serves the greater liberal good.
________________________________________________________
Halls of Justice Painted Green, Money Talking.
Power Wolves Beset Your Door, Hear Them Stalking.
I am not a troll. Just new. Wow you guys sure make people. fell welcome...
You keep posting these defensive posts. WHO called you dishonest? I believe that if you READ what has been posted, the NYT is called dishonest.
Who called you a troll? And where? On what post?
Just for the record, what is your shoe size...just in case we need one that fits!
I think he's a troll, somewhere in the "concern troll" family, but I hadn't yet raised that point above when you posted your question. Like you noticed, his protestations on the point sound so classically trollish and add to the suspicion.
I noticed the post by Neil that mentioned "troll-like behavior." Of course, the inability to use the Reply To This button is another trollish characteristic. I think it is too much posting at dkos-like sites that makes them unable to read instructions.
At this point I think I am going to apply the Rule that has been ascribed to me! :>)
Also since when does disagrement diserve disrespect? I was and will be careful about the coments I make here. Again since you called me dishonest, I think my point is made. I just wanted to point out my problem, not "rail against you".
Man I wish there was spell check on this thing!
which had false information geared to tar and feather the NYT"
I have seen some discrepancy about the pricing in that the cheaper price was for a full page black and white ad without a set publication date. Funny how it ran on the EXACT date as the generals report and that the ad had wording in it speaking to the generals report being given THAT day.....sooooo what false info?
Sorry but it's hard for us not to be cynical of a newspaper
as partisan as that rag.
Again, you guys sure make a new poster feel welcome.
The false info was in the original post. It suggested that the NYT gave moveon a deal when in fact they did not.
I felt the dishonest comment was directed at me. I read the post and I believe it was directed at me. But perhaps I was wrong. Neil what did you mean by "Classic leftist dishonest dodge." Me or the Times. I think you meant me.
Not trying being defensive, but it's tough. You guys are tough. But none of you have talked about my comments on better way of communicating. Maybe it's the nature of blogging. I am again new to this.
And by the way what do any of you know about me. I could be a raving commie but that's unlikely. But when I tell you that I am middle of the road I would think that it might be taken at face value rather than rejected out of hand.
Just what do you think the chances are a fireworks company could have its Adv run on the third of July ?
A greeting card company have theirs run on the day before mothers day or fathers day.
A toy store chain have its run on december 24th.
Look not only doesn't it happen, any publisher will make certain it doesn't happen. Its basic business you don't give away premium slots you make customers do something to get them.
So stop with the stupidity. Your either disingenuous or a tool.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
When there's no substantive argument in your comments, just complaints that you think people are being bad, you shouldn't be surprised people write you off as a troll.
De Opresso Liber
lets ask ourselves why the Times would agree to publish such a spurious attack on General P. at any time, for any reason, and at any price.
No ethical or moral standards at the Times?
DId the editorial staff simply 'overlook' this page?
Did . . . (yawn) . . . I really write this ?! I must have been dreaming. Did I accidentially puch my 'Naievte' button rather than my 'No Prisoners' button?
I think I actually know why the Times published this scut.
Mainly because, I think, the Times wishes to become the nation's primary 'official' propaganda outlet after Soro's patriotic little PAC has installed it's 'bought and paid for' Democrat marionette in the White House, and floods the Congress with multitudes of shoddy little Party cadremen/persons.
In which case the Times current defacto position will finally become de jure'. Then we can all be happy and at peace. None of us will know anymore about anything than any other of us; and, we'll all know only what we are told is the truth (with a capital 'T')
Even Orwell couldn't imagine such a scenario.