# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![ArizonaTeach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArizonaTeach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArizonaTeach)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/81 "2007-09-15T17:05:09Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] They gave MoveOn the **standard** rate for the ad that they placed. They did not give MoveOn any type of “deep discount” that would have any implications for their reputation. Further, the OP stated: “Normally this ad should cost about $180,000. MoveOn was charged $65,000 instead.” Is this a correct statement or not? I’ll answer that - it is entirely false. The ad that they placed should normally cost exactly what they said it should cost. Any other characterization of what happened, as you are trying to do, is nothing but deceitful. [/QUOTE] (Bangs head on wall) I’m not saying they did anything in the least bit wrong! I’ve **said** they haven’t done anything wrong. I find it incredibly ironic that you are condemning me on your assumptions that **I** am making assumptions. And it is absolutely **not** the standard, for what it’s worth; they don’t publish a standard rate for standby. So, yes, the standard rate for the ad would be $180,000. But **everyone** would get the discounted rate if they chose standby…which turned out to be the exact same date that MoveOn asked for, incidentally. That’s why people raised their eyebrows. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/82 "2007-09-15T17:22:03Z")
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach] That’s why people raised their eyebrows. [/QUOTE] Nah, people raised their eyebrows because they _wanted_ to raise their eyebrows over the ad. For example, the putative discount had nothing to do with [McCain’s outrage](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/14/politics/main3262322.shtml): > [@](#): > > Arizona Senator John McCain has taken criticism of anti-war group [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) to a whole new level: He is suggesting that the organization “ought to be thrown out of this country.” > … > “It’s disgraceful, it’s got to be retracted and condemned by the Democrats, and [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) ought to be thrown out of this country.” The discount story is just a little bit of icing. ---
**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 15, 2007, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/83 "2007-09-15T17:36:33Z")
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach] (Bangs head on wall) I’m not saying they did anything in the least bit wrong! I’ve **said** they haven’t done anything wrong. I find it incredibly ironic that you are condemning me on your assumptions that **I** am making assumptions. And it is absolutely **not** the standard, for what it’s worth; they don’t publish a standard rate for standby. So, yes, the standard rate for the ad would be $180,000. But **everyone** would get the discounted rate if they chose standby…which turned out to be the exact same date that MoveOn asked for, incidentally. That’s why people raised their eyebrows. [/QUOTE] No, the standard rate of $180K would be for an ad that you specify has to run on a certain date. Why is this hard to grasp? It’s like saying that my cable service is giving me a discount because I have a package that offers fewer channels, or that I’m getting a discount for buying a ticket up on the mezzanine instead of in the front row. Paying a standard rate for a less preferred service is not a discount. Furthermore, you’ve asserted several times that there was nothing false in the OP. Clearly, several of the statements were false, and moreover they were designed to imply that something untoward occurred. ---
**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 15, 2007, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/84 "2007-09-15T18:40:16Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] Furthermore, you’ve asserted several times that there was nothing false in the OP. Clearly, several of the statements were false, and moreover they were designed to imply that something untoward occurred. [/QUOTE] First of all, I think a distinction ought to be drawn between misleading statements and mistaken statements. Otherwise, you’re just calling me a liar - and if you’re doing that, you ought to head to another forum. Regarding mistaken statements, you just made one yourself when you said that I implied that something untoward happened in my OP. Clearly I did not: [QUOTE=Mr. Moto] However, most fair minded people will give a limited pass to advertising content. After all, a paper has to pay the bills, the content is produced by others, and if it isn’t terribly objectionable, the presumption is that it will be run. Nobody here will fault a paper for not running a particular ad for whatever reason, and nobody will question the right of a paper to discount advertising rates for whatever reason either. The question for me comes when a paper has pretensions of objectivity in its news coverage, yet deeply discounts a large ad for a political group. The New York Times did this with the recent General Betray Us ad from MoveOn. Normally this ad should cost about $180,000. MoveOn was charged $65,000 instead. Again, I certainly think the NYT has a right to do what it wishes - but is this sort of deal by a newspaper wise? [/QUOTE] Even if I was wrong about the discount, I stipulated at all times that the NYT could do what it wished (this is before I learned of election law that made things somewhat murkier). So I absolutely did not imply that something untoward happened. ---
**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 15, 2007, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/85 "2007-09-15T18:44:06Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] So I absolutely did not imply that something untoward happened. [/QUOTE] If nothin “untoward” happened, why should there be any question of the NYT’s repuration? ---
**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 15, 2007, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/86 "2007-09-15T18:56:51Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] First of all, I think a distinction ought to be drawn between misleading statements and mistaken statements. Otherwise, you’re just calling me a liar - and if you’re doing that, you ought to head to another forum. [/quote] Sure, if needs be. There’s a great deal I would like to say, although it won’t do a bit to change your hardened partisan position. In this particular case, I think you were nothing more than a willing dupe trying to spread a dubious smear against the NYT and also give more time to something that you seem to think is a big deal - the MoveOn ad. Now, at some point, coming running to the SDMB to spread these smears, most of which end up being revealed to be untruths, should be itself regarded as deceitful. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/87 "2007-09-15T20:11:25Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] Wha??? Huh??? It’s just innocent questions, man. Like, say, if you were to find out that John McCain fathered an illegitimate child, would it make you more or less likely to vote for him? [/QUOTE] You beat me to it with that example. This the classic Rovian tactic of planting associations in people’s minds while using language that allows them to deny making any false statement, knowing that for a certain percentage of the population, it will stick. ---
**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 15, 2007, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/88 "2007-09-15T22:45:06Z")
[QUOTE=sqweels] This the classic Rovian tactic of planting associations in people’s minds while using language that allows them to deny making any false statement, knowing that for a certain percentage of the population, it will stick. [/QUOTE] Karl Rove hell, the method is a lot older than that. > [@](#): > > All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true in itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. > > _Mein Kampf_ - Vol. I, Chap. X ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2007, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/89 "2007-09-15T23:38:41Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] If I’m defending the New York Times and you’ve got information they’re wrong, I hope you realize we are seriously in danger of causing a rift in the space-time continuum. [/QUOTE] Well, as you’re a Canadian, it’s not really your job to protect the space-time continuum. So defend away, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2007, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/90 "2007-09-16T00:01:23Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] If I’m defending the New York Times and you’ve got information they’re wrong, I hope you realize we are seriously in danger of causing a rift in the space-time continuum. [/QUOTE] **Sam**. We’ve got a discounted deal this week in the US–we can make you an honorary member of [moveon.org](http://moveon.org) for a low, low price. Normally, this would cost $100,000 US. But, today only, since you are defending the Commie/pinko/lefty Times, we’ll give it to you for only $29.95 US. \* \*[sub]This offer not good for bloggers, troglodytes, Freepers or Anne Coulter or Rush Limpbaugh. Cash value, 1 mil. [/sub] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2007, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/91 "2007-09-16T00:29:33Z")
Would it still work if we take up a collection, all kinda chip in? The Canadian thing doesn’t matter, does it? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2007, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/92 "2007-09-16T01:05:08Z")
Hey, I can defend the NYT without defending MoveOn. The NYT did nothing wrong by publishing the ad (and in fact would have done something wrong had they refused), but that doesn’t mean it was a good ad. It was a slander of someone with a sterling reputation, intended to poison the well before he could even give his testimony. The ad itself was despicable. It just has nothing to do with the New York Times. They were just the delivery vehicle. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2007, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/93 "2007-09-16T01:27:36Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] It was a slander of someone with a sterling reputation [/quote] Please to point out the slanderous parts. > [@](#): > > intended to poison the well before he could even give his testimony. Or maybe MoveOn’s intent was to keep everyone from swooning over St. Petraeus and taking his every last harrumph as gospel. Not to mention pointing out the discrepancies between Petraeus Numbers and everyone else’s. My guess is as good as yours. > [@](#): > > The ad itself was despicable. That’s your opinion, but surely you must have a rationale for it, rather than sharing a knee-jerk reaction with us. Feel free to share. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2007, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/94 "2007-09-17T19:16:55Z")
FWIW, Guiliani’s ad in the NY Times attacking Clinton was charged at the same rate as MoveOn’s ad. [http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070915/NATION/109150059&SearchID=73293654869432](http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070915/NATION/109150059&SearchID=73293654869432) > [@The Moonie News Daily](#): > > Mr. Giuliani’s campaign said they were charged the same discounted rate that the liberal advocacy group paid for an ad published Monday in the Times that accused Gen. Petraeus of “cooking the books” on the war and asked, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” ---
**Author:** ![ArizonaTeach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArizonaTeach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArizonaTeach)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2007, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/95 "2007-09-23T23:09:06Z")
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian] No, the standard rate of $180K would be for an ad that you specify has to run on a certain date. Why is this hard to grasp? It’s like saying that my cable service is giving me a discount because I have a package that offers fewer channels, or that I’m getting a discount for buying a ticket up on the mezzanine instead of in the front row. Paying a standard rate for a less preferred service is not a discount. Furthermore, you’ve asserted several times that there was nothing false in the OP. Clearly, several of the statements were false, and moreover they were designed to imply that something untoward occurred. [/QUOTE] Annnnd…you’re wrong. Not only is the Times now admitting they erroneously gave the discount and that their defense of a standby rate was not accurate, the Times public editor is now saying that the ad may have violated the Times’ policy on personal attacks in ads. [Betraying Its Own Best Interests](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html?ex=1348200000&en=2a0a6303dfc931e8&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) I’ll repeat that, since it seems to be a concept that’s hard to “grasp.” They received the standby rate when they shouldn’t have. In fact, my understanding now is that MoveOn is voluntarily going to repay the remainder of the full rate. What’s funny is that at first I didn’t think the Times did anything wrong (and I don’t believe that MoveOn did do anything wrong…well, except for the ad istself). Thank you for so vehemently defending something that wasn’t being attacked, as it spurred me to clarify the issue. The hand-wringng, justifications, and distractions may now begin. And all of those demanding apologies may now deliver them. ---
**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 23, 2007, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/96 "2007-09-23T23:47:02Z")
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach] Annnnd…you’re wrong. Not only is the Times now admitting they erroneously gave the discount and that their defense of a standby rate was not accurate, the Times public editor is now saying that the ad may have violated the Times’ policy on personal attacks in ads. [/QUOTE] I was indeed wrong. ---
**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 24, 2007, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/97 "2007-09-24T00:50:31Z")
Referring back to my OP, I originally asked whether this harmed the Times’ reputation. It did. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2007, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/98 "2007-09-24T01:50:13Z")
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach] I’ll repeat that, since it seems to be a concept that’s hard to “grasp.” They received the standby rate when they shouldn’t have. In fact, my understanding now is that MoveOn is voluntarily going to repay the remainder of the full rate. [/QUOTE] However, there is still no evidence that this was a decision made for any politically-motivated reasons. It was made by one advertising sales rep. and it is not clear to me exactly what the nature of the mistake was, as it says: > [@](#): > > Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, “We made a mistake.” She said the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) with the understanding that the ad would run then. She added, “That was contrary to our policies.” Now, the ad did indeed run on Monday but did the ad rep fail to tell MoveOn that he couldn’t guarantee it would run on Monday because he thought he could in fact guarantee that or was there in fact a possibility that MoveOn would have gotten an unpleasant surprise when their ad was bumped to another day? In my mind then, there are still some unanswered questions: While this is technically contrary to their policies, do ad reps anxious to sell ad space often do this sort of thing where give the organization the discount rate but also check and assure them that there does look like there is in fact space for their ad to run on the preferred day? Or, was this truly an unusual act on the part of the ad rep? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2007, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/99 "2007-09-24T01:52:09Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] Referring back to my OP, I originally asked whether this harmed the Times’ reputation. It did. [/QUOTE] Not nearly as much as Judith Miller’s articles did…or at least should have! ---
**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2007, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096/100 "2007-09-24T05:03:20Z")
**David Simmons** , it’s even older than you think. > [@Cicero](#): > > Your boyhood, indeed, which you dedicated to intemperance of all kinds, I would discuss, if I thought this the right time. But at the present I advisedly leave that aside. This too I pass by, that the tribunes have reported you as irregular in military service. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nyt-gives-moveon-deep-ad-discount-does-this-harm-the-times-reputation/419096.md?page=6)