(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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
Sam. We’ve got a discounted deal this week in the US–we can make you an honorary member of 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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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?