And in addition, by the way, the laws restricting corporate and union political activity apply to broadcast only, and that only within 30 days of any primary or general federal election.
As far as I can find out, there is no restriction on political activity in the print media or in non-election times.
I find it interesting that the Rudy ad is remarkably fact-free (other than a few facts about Petraeus as a person). It doesn’t actually address any of the points in the MoveOn ad except the heading of that ad. I admit that that heading was in poor taste…but its purpose seemed to be to get people’s attention to the point where they would read the rest of the ad, which was very fact-based. (Whether those facts are correct or misleading I am not sure but certainly Giuliani’s ad doesn’t help address that question at all.)
You said that the NYT gave MoveOn.org a discount because of their political slant. That was not the case.
Well, to be strictly fair, he didn’t actually say it so much as imply. Implied the hell out of it, but still…
Well, no he didn’t. Are you disputing that the Times gave them a price less than their published rates? I didn’t think that was in dispute, nor, it turns out, is that in the least bit unusual. Before he knew it was business as usual, Mr. Moto asked if discounting a political ad of that nature would harm the newspaper’s credibility. Is that not a valid question?
What in this paragraph is factually incorrect:
Fact: the paper maintains its objectivity.
Fact: the paper deeply discounted a political ad.
Again, granted, we find out this is par for the course, and (I imagine) anyone can get those rates, but that doesn’t change either of those two facts. So, what, exactly, should Mr. Moto be apologizing for?
It’s amazing how many people (though not all) ignored the question that was posed just to score some political points proving Mr. Moto was wrong about something he never even claimed. He never claimed the NYT was acting unfairly in the OP. He never claimed conservative ads were ignored (although, apparently, advocacy ads for Swift Boat Vets and Terri Schiavo were rejected), and he even said that the NYT could pretty much do what it wanted to do. He just wanted to know if this hurts its credibility.
And I think the answer is, “no,” **not ** “Clinton got a blowjob.”
I read on a conservative blog that it was possible the NYT violated campaign finance laws, so I dug up the appropriate laws and… they didn’t.
Here’s a good guide to this: Guide to campaign finance law.
As far as I can tell, the NYT didn’t come close to violating CFR, under the old standard or the new one. As David Simmons says, for the ‘electioneering’ standard to be met, the ad has to run in broadcast media, within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. For the ‘express advocacy’ standard to be met, the ad must clearly identify a candidate for office. Since no one in the White House is running for office, the MoveOn ad’s mention of the White House is irrelevant.
The NYT didn’t do anything illegal. They probably didn’t do anything wrong, either. Ad rates are always flexible - you can negotiate different rates depending on how badly the paper needs the ad revenue or how much space they need to fill. You can also get discounts for regular use, if you prepare the ad yourself, and all kind of other things.
Had they refused to run the MoveOn ad, then they WOULD be guilty of bias, wouldn’t they? If they refused to run an NRA ad, the right would go ballistic. If their standard is that they’ll run any ad that isn’t libelous as long as the ad is properly paid for, I don’t see the problem. The NYT isn’t responsible for MoveOn’s editorial position.
Fallacy. No deep discount was offered to a political ad. Thus, stating that it was (to wit: “The New York Times did this…”) is both false and a statement, not a question.
Please, it is quite simple to click on the offered links. Find the one that Cervaise called to our attention. I’ll wait…
You’ll see that the ad was placed for a **standard rate ** for any advocacy ad whose timing is not fixed, but is rather done at the discretion of the Times.
There was no question. It was a statement, and it was false.
Yes and the answer is that it won’t harm the Times’ reputation one bit with those of Moto’s political persuasion. This is a tempest in a teapot. I’m willing to let the Times take care of its reputation.
Actually what he said wa
The objectivity in news coverage can be separate from the editorial stance of a newspaper or what ads it runs. It’s done every day. Any good newspaper is objective in news coverage. That is it simply tells the story to the best of its ability without shading the events to its political leanings.
If John Edwards accepts a payment of seven hundred and forty thousand krugerrand from Wolfgang Puck in exchange for all the trimmings from Edwards’s last year of haircuts, does this suggest Edwards should recuse himself from the discussion of any legislation regarding the production of flash frozen supermarket-style hair cakes?
If Fred Thompson drinks five liters of 10-W-40 and then shits out a sparkling but somewhat stinky diamond, will there be questions about his connections to the DeBeers cartel?
If Bill Richardson assfucks a tapir in the middle of Wolf Blitzer’s Situation Room, will his stated commitment to environmental protection be undermined?
Are these valid questions?
Any particular part of the CFR? It’s pretty damned big, after all.
I searched a bunch of it, and couldn’t find anything relevant. The link I posted above is a ‘guide to CFR’ which described what I think the relevant standards are to this issue, and I couldn’t find anything that the New York Times did wrong. Am I missing something?
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.
You know how I can tell that there is no such thing as the “liberal media”? Because laughable crap like this is the best “evidence” that the right wing can come up with to support their thesis.
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?
Hey, I’m just asking innocent questions. Nothing wrong with that.
What are you, opposed to free and open inquiry? Don’t like a dispassionate, completely non-partisan search for the truth? You must hate American freedoms, pally.
So, if I understand this correctly, the theory is that the NYT, a publicly traded corporation, purposely reduced its revenue stream solely in order to promote a MoveOn ad? That would constitute a breach of fiduciary duty to the NYT’s shareholders, and could give rise to legal liability on the part of the NYT.
Of course, since the NYT is so liberal in the first place, they probably don’t care about money either. I read on a blog somewhere that the NYT actually prints their newspaper on stitched-together one dollar bills in order to thumb their nose at the man. Since I’ve cited an unnamed blog, you know it’s true.
Give them a call at 212-556-7171 (that’s the Advertising Acceptability dept) and ask them. Aside from them likely being tired of fielding questions from the press, getting an ad rep on the phone at the NYT (or any major newspaper) is usually pretty easy and they’re almost always willing to quote you a rate on the spot. Ask if they have a specific Advocacy Group rate card (it isn’t on the web site right now that I can find) and have them fax it over to you. I did that sort of thing nearly every day at my last job and reps are always excited at the possibility of getting an ad, particularly a full page ROP. Cha-ching!
FWIW, here is what the Chicago Tribune rate card has to say about political ads:
I’m not getting you here. You posted a link to something called the Campaign Finance Guide, then after that, you referred to the CFR, which when discussing Federal laws and regulations, almost always means the Code of Federal Regulations, which adds a layer of specificity to the U.S. Code. It’s pretty massive, so a reference to a particular part of it is called for.
While I don’t think that’s happening now, the fact is that it wouldn’t risk any sort of cosmic danger. The NYT has quite a few reporters who do little more than take down what Senior Administration Officials say in background briefings, and report it uncritically in the paper. Given that the SAOs are Republican these days, I’d fully expect there’d be some times when you were defending the NYT’s reporting and I was criticizing it.
[/hijack]
Not innocent, no. But legitimate. I notice Jake Tapper over at the ABC News website was writing about this same subject.
Why don’t you head over there and give him some grief.
I think you guys are talking about different things. Your post was about Campaign Finance Regulations. His was about the Code of Federal Regulations.
The former is pretty much theBipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold. The Code of Federal Regulations is a whole library of regulations that are developed by the Executive to actually administer the legislation passed by Congress.
So, there **isn’t ** a discount for placing an ad in the seven-day window as opposed to a specific day? Did you read Cervaise’s link? You keep talking about it; I assumed that you did.
So, to reiterate. The NYT gave a discount because the ad was placed under the “seven-day window” plan, about a 50% discount, in fact. The ad was political. Neither of the facts makes what the NYT did in the least bit wrong or not credible.
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.