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.
From the article:
So the NYT is on record as noting the range of pricing that is consistent with the price 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.)
Sorry – I obviously meant Mr Blakeman.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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]
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.
Six months from now, people who didn’t read the articles will still remember “the controversy.” So, yeah, his job here is done.
Didn’t even reply.
I’m starting to get a bit blue, waiting for the retraction. Perhaps holding my breath was unwise.
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.
Are you sure about this? What electioneering for public office is involved here? Is Petraeus a candidate for some political office?
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.
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.
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.)
And the Fairness Doctrine hasn’t been in effect for 20 years now.
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.
Do Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Nancy Grace know this?