So Now We Know
By Erick Posted in War — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Having done its best for the past four years to undermine the war effort, disrupt national security, aid and abet our enemies, and provide comfort to terrorists, the New York Times has now gone one step further in its efforts to undermine the war.
Newsbusters is reporting that MoveOn.org was given a discount from the New York Times for its anti-Petraeus advertisement. Mind you, it received the political advertising discount that every political advertiser gets, but received an additional $102,000.00 discount.
We've known all along that the New York Times would rather shill for the left than honestly contribute to the national dialogue, but I really am a a bit surprised by how far in bed the Gray Lady has gotten.
No doubt Pinch and Osama are about to move to Vermont and adopt together.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Six Years — Comments (0) »
So Now We Know 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
....for all the Dems in Congress who claim Petraeus is lying/misleading/selling them a "false bill of goods".....that is a SERIOUS offense. If the Dems honestly believe that, have General Petraeus brought up on charges and have him court martialed.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Looks like the Times has a wopping $102,000 to report as a political contribution.
That little 8-mil 'advance' for her coloring book in 2000.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
The Democrats were always Very Deep in how they convey an important idea, what a cute little ditty: petraeus/betray us. How wonderfully simple if you don't know much, but you want to remember who you are fighting against without too much strain. I hope that the new line coming from the 2008 dem primaries will be: "I voted to confirm Petraeus BEFORE I assaulted his character/intergrity/service/etc in front of the world."
They could always follow up with "How smart am I, huh?" I would someday love to be a mouse in the corner at the meeting where they think all of this stuff up. Just to see how their thought process works.........(daydreaming)........
("Don't you think we should lay out our case in a dignified manner?" "NO! That's absurd! That's just what those dirty conservatives and military members WANT us to do. But do WE answer to them? NO! I say we start rhyming right now. And we're gonna work all night if that's what it takes until we find words. Yeah, like in that pig & spider movie. Words that either rhyme....or, or start all with the same letter, or play on a movie title. This is too important to mess up, now hand me that dictionary!")
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
Frankly, this is a non-story. Very few advertisers pay the rate card. Rate cards are like retail prices.
If someone advertise regularly, they get additional discounts over the official "retail" rate card. I have run ads for my business and almost never paid full rate card rates.
Other ways to save: brokers buy up blocks at wholesale to resell due to their purchasing power. Or, "remnants", little extra bits of space that a magazine or paper has available. I've paid as little as 1/10th of rate card prices for a magazine ad.
The whole point of the article is that somehow they got special treatment due to their political orientation. There are far more likely explainations in the everyday business of running ads. I'm sure any business or political group that runs ads routinely could get similar pricing discounts from any major paper.
Especially given the NYT's shrinking business and lagging stock price.