Good business sense. Outlays vs. income.
Why pay your reporting and editorial staff when someone else is willing to cough-up (even cut-rate) dollars to say essentially the same thing for you?
Fox Gnus advertised it as an “exclusive”, take it up with them.
Well, they could well be technically correct in that it is an exclusive full hour interview, but that’s just typically marketing hype. OTOH, no one seemed to have questioned ThinkProgress’s reporting of this as somehow indicative of those two guys only wanting the softball questions.
Just so! I saw portions of that interview, Sean Hannity was asking hard-hitting questions (or such as could be managed with his mouth full…) and permitting his bitch to occasionally interrupt with respectful applause.
They were probably open to such interviews from any venue, but Fox asked first. Yes, that must be it, no reason to read in any political slant. Heck, no.
“General, we have several requests for interviews…”
“Well, which one is fair and balanced?”
“That would be Fox, sir. Shall we pencil you in?”
Heck, a political naif like the Commander of Candor can hardly be expected to have a sophisticated understanding of media, now can he? Being apolitical, and all.
This just goes to show that if you snark in each and every possible thread you’ll eventually type something that will make me LOL…well done!
It gives meaning to an otherwise dreary and pointless existence.
The New York Times is a privately run corporation and its owners have every right to be biased. Every day there is more news than you can fit in the paper and so you select which to print and the biases of the editors go into that selection.
The editors also select which stories to put on page 1 and their biases go into that too.
What they should not do if they want respect as journalists is slant the news stories because of their biases. As far as what ads they run and how much they carge for them, their biases can run wild.
Was the moveon.org ad in other papers besides the NYT?
Terrorist Post, Death-to- America Monitor, New Republic…, a few others…
The TP was bought out. It’s the Terrorist Post-Intelligencer now. It has a subtitle: Keeping up with the Times.
I hadn’t heard! Soros or MoveOn?
Yeah, nobody pays the open rate in a newspaper or even the quoted rate card frequency/quantity rates. I’m a little surprised to see such a large discount, but as Gaudere stated, if they signed on for a 12x or 24x contract, the frequency discount could possibly sink that low.
From my experience with newspapers, the ad guys have virtually no contact with editorial. They’re there to make the money for the paper - most papers lose a shitload on every subscriber sold, so distribution is actually a financial loss. I would be surprised if the advertising dept there was willing to take such a hit for something like this. I’d bet on contract rates and a decent print buyer.
Well, you might be able to balance out an hour on FOX with an hour of being interviewed by Markos Moulitsas.
The point being that FOX and Kos are partisans on opposite sides, and Lehrer’s not.
There’s a difference? Don’t you know that Soros is essentially the sole source of the sparse left-wing conspiracy? It’s him, Hitler and Saddam, and given that two of them are dead, the conventions are pretty small.
According to Katherine Mathis a VP of Corporate Communications for the NYT in a report on Huffington Post by Steve Young the price of the ad is not a function of the ideology of the buyer. It is based on the size, placement, color or b/w and date of advertisement (flexibility apparently gets you a greater discount.) According to Young the ad might have been purchased even more cheaply.
This has all been very illuminating.
In the news today, Rudy Giuliani requested ad space from the Times at similar rates, and has run his own ad. It ran today.
Ah, so Rudy admits he’s a liar.
Quote 1 from ad: “Hillary Clinton…refused to denounce MoveOn.org’s ad.”
Quote 2 from ad: “Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn.org.”
And, for bonus points:
Quote 3 from ad: “These times call for statesmanship, not politicians spewing political venom.” - Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Guess he is urging us to vote for someone else.
<click and clack> Bo-oh-oh-oh-oh-gus! </click and clack>
There was no discount. Giuliani and/or his handlers don’t know how to read a rate sheet.
The accusation is false.
I await the retraction and apology.
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!
Dunno. I don’t want to go way into the deep end here, but if issues were raised by this incident, I certainly want to discuss them.
This compendium of election law provided by the FEC (warning: PDF. See page 79) indicates that newspapers are required to provide equitable rates to all political organizations. If it turns out that the NYT has not done so (and some groups are complaining) then they ought to pay a price for violating the law.
I don’t think it is necessarily right that they should do so - I am skeptical of most “campaign finance reform.” But the law is the law, and the New York Times enthusiastically backed every “reform” that came down the pike. So they ought to abide by what is on the books.
Right now I would be satisfied by a more complete explanation by the NYT on their rate structure, which groups qualify for which rates, and which groups are denied advertising space. Given that issue ad rates are controlled to some degree by federal law, such a request is not unreasonable.