# NYT gives MoveOn deep ad discount. Does this harm the Times' reputation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 13, 2007, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096 "2007-09-13T17:52:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/41 "2007-09-14T15:17:25Z")
[QUOTE=squeegee] Jeez, someone’s heading down the road to paranoid minutae: Emphasis mine. Sulzburger is intent on finding bias, somehow, some way. Perhaps MoveOn’s ad buyer was given a better grade of cappuccino during by the paper than he was, yeah, that’s it. Bias Bias! [/QUOTE] I think you got your names mixed up. Pinch Sulzberger is the Times’ publisher, and while he does head down the road to paranoid minutiae, it is in an entirely different direction. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/42 "2007-09-14T15:31:07Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] [Here’s coverage of the event.](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/politics/14paper.html?ref=business) [/QUOTE] From the article: > [@](#): > > Catherine J. Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times Company, said the advertising department does not base its rates on political content. She also said the department does not disclose the rates it charges for individual advertisements. But she did say that “similar types of ads are priced in the same way.” She said the department charges advocacy groups $64,575 for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis, meaning an advertiser can request a specific day and placement but is not guaranteed them. > > . . . > > In a letter Thursday to its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the president of Freedom’s Watch, Bradley A. Blakeman, said: “The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000, but we could not pick the date or placement of the ad.” Mr. Blakeman said [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) must have been able to pick the date of its advertisement, or had been given “preferential treatment” on the timing, because news organizations were discussing the advertisement before it ran. > > Ms. Mathis said the content of an advertisement is not reviewed before a price is quoted. > > As for advance word of when a standby ad is running, she said: “Someone might say, ‘I’d like the standby rate, I’d like it to run tomorrow,’ and we say, ‘We can’t guarantee that,’ but then if we find out it is running, we let them know. If we have room, we try to accommodate them.” So the NYT is on record as noting the range of pricing that is consistent with the price [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) was given and notes that all the other conditions about which some right-wing types are screaming are perfectly consitent with business as usual. “_. . . it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing_.” (The invented outrage of Blakeman and company, not **Mr. Moto** or others who responded to the incomplete earlier reports.) ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/43 "2007-09-14T15:34:20Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] I think you got your names mixed up. [/QUOTE] Sorry – I obviously meant Mr Blakeman. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/44 "2007-09-14T15:53:55Z")
I work in publishing. I wish we got the amount on our rate card for all of our ads. If we did, I would have a much more secure job. But the business just doesn’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/45 "2007-09-14T15:58:40Z")
[QUOTE=vibrotronica] I work in publishing. I wish we got the amount on our rate card for all of our ads. If we did, I would have a much more secure job. But the business just doesn’t work that way. [/QUOTE] Thanks. I’m getting that and it makes perfect sense. But very importantly, do you charge political candidates and advocacy groups the same rate structure all of the time? Do you restrict content at all? If so, what is the basis for that restriction? Mind you, I think such restrictions can be valid - I don’t think any paper should be compelled to run ads from the Klan, for instance. But I’m curious how explicitly this is written, or whether it is a judgment call by the advertising staff. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/46 "2007-09-14T16:51:07Z")
**Moto** , didn’t you read the link provided by **Cervaise**? I don’t see the reason to excuse the people whose self-appointed job it is to spread the lies any more than those who come up with them in the first place. You guys should really try trafficking in the truth for a change. It’s far past the point where I’ve come to assume that stories like these are in fact bogus. Fool me once, shame on you and all that… Don’t get me wrong - this isn’t any sort of concern trolling. I’m more than happy to see the credibility of the Republicans and their supporters shot down in flames and then stomped into the ground. However, I’m morbidly curious whether you feel any shame or embarrassment in continually having the rug pulled out from under your outrage. ---
**Author:** ![vibrotronica](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/a9a28c/32.png) [@vibrotronica](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vibrotronica)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/47 "2007-09-14T17:05:10Z")
We’re a shelter magazine. We don’t take political advertising at all. Actually, I’m not sure anyone has even ever approached us for a political ad, so I don’t know if we would take it or not. Frankly, we need all the money we can get. There’s no evidence the New York Times discriminated in any way on the basis of content in this case. Certainly not like the time the anti-war [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) ad was rejected from the Superbowl. But that doesn’t matter, **Mr. Moto**. You just want to slag the New York Times as part of the effort to continue this damn fool war. You made your headline. Your job here is done. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/48 "2007-09-14T17:14:44Z")
What might have happened if there had been no negotiation between NYT and MoveOn? (Full disclosure: I am a member and my politics lean somewhat leftish…) Suppose the NYT had demanded their full, non-discounted ad rate for the page, without any of the (apparently) customary haggling. MoveOn would have paid. Simple as that. And frankly, I rather wish they hadn’t. Aid and comfort to the enemy, doncha know. Not the Global Terrorist Islamofacist Extremists, they may not even have noticed. I mean Hannity, Coulter, and the rest of the rabid right chihuahua. Made their day, giving them plenty to talk about without having to address any awkward questions about truth, facts, etc. [levity] The Doper watches the Prez speech… “Cite?..cite?..first reference to Al Queda, bong rip and shot of tequila each time, right? (slurp, bubblebubblebubble…)…Oh, _cite_, goddamit!.. sweet bleeding OG, cite!..(AlQ ref, slurp, bubble…)…WTF? No, seriously, WTF, where the hell did that number…oops, AlQ reference, slurp, bubble…Jumping Jebus, what hole did he pull that out of!..Cite?..Again, with the AlQ?..What happened to the dog? Dude, where’s my cur?..ouch! C’mon, wasn’t _that_ bad…” [/levity] ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/49 "2007-09-14T18:16:55Z")
The amusing thing about this whole episode for me is how whacked out the Right’s view of reality is that they actually thought the most likely explanation was that the NY Times gave MoveOn a special discount because they liked their politics! I mean this is the newspaper that probably singlehandedly did more to get us into this war than any other print media. Hell, wasn’t it Donald Rumsfeld who referred to some of the Judith Miller phantasmogorical articles as providing credence to the Administrations claims (never mind that the sources for the claims weren’t at all independent)? There were so many more logical explanations for the discount other than some sort of dramatic bias on the NY Times’ part that I am surprised that some people really considered this to be the most likely explanation…let alone a likely explanation at all. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/50 "2007-09-14T18:28:19Z")
[QUOTE=vibrotronica] You made your headline. Your job here is done. [/QUOTE] Six months from now, people who didn’t read the articles will still remember “the controversy.” So, yeah, his job here is done. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/51 "2007-09-14T18:48:49Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] **Moto** , didn’t you read the link provided by **Cervaise**? [/QUOTE] Didn’t even reply. I’m starting to get a bit blue, waiting for the retraction. Perhaps holding my breath was unwise. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/52 "2007-09-14T19:22:35Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] Didn’t even reply. I’m starting to get a bit blue, waiting for the retraction. Perhaps holding my breath was unwise. [/QUOTE] What should I retract or apologize for? I posted asking a question, and when I got information from **Gaudere** informing me of the true nature of newspaper ad pricing, I thanked him for it. I don’t think it was the end of the debate necessarily, but I accepted it at face value. Now, if I was holding firm to a viewpoint and not modifying it at all, perhaps there would be something to retract. The Times has to follow election law - and MoveOn is a registered PAC. Giving them a standby rate might be perfectly fair, and I would have no issue with it, but other groups have to be offered the same rate structure. That’s the law, and now that this mess has hit the fan and it turns out that the ad rates of the NYT aren’t fully transparent, the Times might have to answer a few questions it otherwise wouldn’t have had to answer. I don’t think this is a lot to ask, and really this is as far as it goes with me, given the answers I have received here. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/53 "2007-09-14T19:51:36Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] The Times has to follow election law [/QUOTE] Are you sure about this? What electioneering for public office is involved here? Is Petraeus a candidate for some political office? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/54 "2007-09-14T19:56:08Z")
Checking further the only thing I can find along this line is the “fairness doctrine” of the FCC. That can be imposed on broadcasters because they use the frequency spectrum which belongs to the public. As for private businesses, I believe they can be as unfair as they wish. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/55 "2007-09-14T20:22:27Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] As for private businesses, I believe they can be as unfair as they wish. [/QUOTE] So if private business Halliburton wanted to donate $50,000,000 to the Republican Party directly, you would see no problems with this? Strictly hypothetical, of course. Private businesses are constrained in many different ways by the law, and this is one way. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/56 "2007-09-14T20:24:22Z")
Not precisely true, **Dave**. For instance, you can’t say it on TV if it isn’t true. (Can’t really expect a man of your mature years to be as media-savvy as us hepcats.) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/57 "2007-09-14T20:51:38Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] Checking further the only thing I can find along this line is the “fairness doctrine” of the FCC. That can be imposed on broadcasters because they use the frequency spectrum which belongs to the public. [/QUOTE] And the Fairness Doctrine hasn’t been in effect for 20 years now. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/58 "2007-09-14T21:12:28Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] So if private business Halliburton wanted to donate $50,000,000 to the Republican Party directly, you would see no problems with this? Strictly hypothetical, of course. Private businesses are constrained in many different ways by the law, and this is one way. [/QUOTE] Entirely different cases. And I do believe Halliburton can spend its own money taking out ads that promote any cause it wants, other than the direct promotion of a particular candidate or party in an election. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/59 "2007-09-14T21:14:43Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Not precisely true, **Dave**. For instance, you can’t say it on TV if it isn’t true. (Can’t really expect a man of your mature years to be as media-savvy as us hepcats.) [/QUOTE] Do Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Nancy Grace know this? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2007, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/60 "2007-09-14T21:21:27Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] So if private business Halliburton wanted to donate $50,000,000 to the Republican Party directly, you would see no problems with this? Strictly hypothetical, of course. Private businesses are constrained in many different ways by the law, and this is one way. [/QUOTE] [The latest on restrictions on corporate political activities.](http://www.winston.com/siteFiles/publications/SupremeCourt_v_Corporate_Speech_Restrictions_6_29_2007.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096.md?page=4)