Liberial Bias from the NYT.

Forums: Politics, Us Politics, American Politics, U S Politics, Nyt
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad that ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded -- even before he testified before Congress -- that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

Source
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So why the deep cut in price? Is this some sort of family discount for the liverial media? If the same thing had happened with a conservitive paper we would never hear the end of it. Why do libs keep denying the liberal slant of such papers.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 8,089 • Replies: 143

No top replies

Motes and beams.

-- also --

liverial

conservitive

Why can't blowhards spell worth a damn?

0 Replies

Re: Liberial Bias from the NYT.

Baldimo wrote:

Liberial Bias

http://www.namnewsnetwork.org/images/liberia_map.gif

0 Replies

Re: Liberial Bias from the NYT.

old europe wrote:

Baldimo wrote:
Liberial Bias

Grazie, Old Europe, I missed that one!

0 Replies

"September 14, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and other Republicans and conservatives demanded yesterday that The New York Times run a full-page ad responding to the one it ran attacking Gen. David Petraeus - at the same slashed price.

"This is unprecedented," Giuliani said yesterday.

"I call upon The New York Times to give us the same rate, the discount, heavily discounted rate they give MoveOn.org for that abominable ad."

Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the MoveOn ad that ran in Monday's Times called Petraeus "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

Giuliani blasted the ad as a "character assassination of an American general in a time of war."

He also called on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to apologize to Petraeus for her treatment of him during a Senate hearing this week.

Also demanding the same price to defend Petraeus yesterday was Freedom's Watch, a group recently formed to counter organizations such as MoveOn on the Iraq war.

"It's outrageous that The New York Times would give a radical left-wing organization like MoveOn.org a discounted rate to publish an ad smearing the credibility of Gen. Petraeus," said the group's president, Brad Blakeman.

There was no response from the Times to the requests for discounted ads, the Giuliani camp and Freedom Watch said.

The Times acknowledged to The Post on Wednesday that the going rate for such an ad would be $181,692.

But a spokesman for MoveOn told The Post that the group paid just $65,000.

Amid a firestorm of criticism yesterday, the Times seemed confused about the proper ad rate.

Earlier in the day, the paper's spokeswoman said MoveOn had re ceived a discount and confirmed to Reuters the normal rate was "about $181,000." But later, the same spokeswoman told The Associated Press that the proper rate for such an ad is about $65,000.

Saying he wanted to place an advocacy group ad similar to MoveOn's, a Post re porter who contacted the Times without identifying himself was told earlier this week that the rate was about $167,000.

"We do not distinguish the advertising rates based on the political content of the ad," spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said, confirming that the normal rate was "around $181,000."

With Post Wires Services

[email protected] "

0 Replies

Hey, why doesn't the NYPost give a discounted rate to Guiliani and Thompson if they are so concerned about it?

he he he.....

0 Replies

Has any more credible news organization confirmed the veraciity of this story, say, the National Enquirer?

0 Replies

"Giuliani slams Times over anti-Petraeus ad
Buys spot to reply to MoveOn.org
By Katharine Q. Seelye, New York Times News Service | September 14, 2007

NEW YORK - The New York Times came under attack yesterday by Rudy Giuliani and a group of conservative Republicans for what they said was favoritism in its advertising rates to MoveOn .org, a liberal antiwar group, for an ad attacking General David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq.

Article Tools
Printer friendly
E-mail to a friend
Nation RSS feed
Available RSS feeds
Most e-mailed
Reprints & Licensing
Share on Digg
Share on Facebook
Save this article
powered by Del.icio.us
More:
Globe Nation stories |
Latest national news |
Globe front page |
Boston.com
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Giuliani, a Republican presidential candidate, sought - and received - space in today's editions of the newspaper for an ad in which he praises Petraeus. Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid.

MoveOn's ad ran in the A section on Monday, the first day of Petraeus's highly anticipated testimony to Congress about the progress of the Iraq war. Congressional Republicans and others widely condemned the ad, saying it impugned Petraeus's integrity and was unpatriotic.

In a campaign stop in Atlanta yesterday, Giuliani told reporters that MoveOn and the Times had engaged in character assassination against Petraeus.

"We are going to ask The New York Times to allow us tomorrow to print an ad that will obviously take the opposite view," Giuliani said, adding that the Times gave a "discounted" rate to MoveOn, which had expressed the "very excessive left-wing side of this dispute."

The ad has become a major talking point for Republicans. Several have demanded that the Democratic presidential candidates condemn the ad, which they have not done.

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times, said the newspaper does not base its ad rates on political content. She also said that the paper cannot disclose what it charges for individual ads. But she did say the paper's "standby rate," which is for advertisers who request a particular day and placement but are not guaranteed it, was $64,575 for a full-page, black-and-white ad on Monday in the A section.

"The Giuliani campaign asked for the same rate as MoveOn, and we said you'd have to go standby," she said. She said the advertising department told the campaign the ad would run in today's A section.

Giuliani's ad attacks MoveOn .org and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic presidential candidate, while praising Petraeus.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company."

You people are just too easy to anticipate.

0 Replies

Quote:

Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for the Times, said the newspaper does not base its ad rates on political content. She also said that the paper cannot disclose what it charges for individual ads. But she did say the paper's "standby rate," which is for advertisers who request a particular day and placement but are not guaranteed it, was $64,575 for a full-page, black-and-white ad on Monday in the A section.

So much for the tempest in a teapot.

So I assume we can expect apologies from the conservatives now about the accusations they made.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

So I assume we can expect apologies from the conservatives now about the accusations they made.

Don't hold your breath...

0 Replies

People are still buying into the whole "liberal media" canard?

0 Replies

If it quacks like un canard... (sorry, I just couldn't resist it!)

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

People are still buying into the whole "liberal media" canard?

Why not? People still buy the whole "vast right-wing conspiracy" BS. *shrugs*

0 Replies

The conservatives are still hiding behind an "anything goes in a time of war"philosophy...except, they mean, they can cook the books, lie, torture, and deceive in a time of war, but you can't criticize anyone for doing any of those things becasue we are at war?

Since when was "being at war" a justification to stifle criticisms of the handling of the war.
Hell, if someone is caught lying or deceiving, especially in a time of war, newspapers should be lining up to have the facts exposed.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

The conservatives are still hiding behind an "anything goes in a time of war"philosophy...except, they mean, they can cook the books, lie, torture, and deceive in a time of war, but you can't criticize anyone for doing any of those things becasue we are at war?

Since when was "being at war" a justification to stifle criticisms of the handling of the war.
Hell, if someone is caught lying or deceiving, especially in a time of war, newspapers should be lining up to have the facts exposed.

As usual, you and your other "loonies" on the left fail to address the issue of the post.

IMO, the NY Times can NOT be taken as an objective source of news since it has demonstrated in this case that they has a strong bias and will curry favors to Left Wing organizations while not doing the same for the opposing point of view. This add should have been run on their editorial page.

The NY TIMES can not be considered a reliable source of information.

That is the point of this post.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
The conservatives are still hiding behind an "anything goes in a time of war"philosophy...except, they mean, they can cook the books, lie, torture, and deceive in a time of war, but you can't criticize anyone for doing any of those things becasue we are at war?

Since when was "being at war" a justification to stifle criticisms of the handling of the war.
Hell, if someone is caught lying or deceiving, especially in a time of war, newspapers should be lining up to have the facts exposed.

As usual, you and your other "loonies" on the left fail to address the issue of the post.

IMO, the NY Times can NOT be taken as an objective source of news since it has demonstrated in this case that they has a strong bias and will curry favors to Left Wing organizations while not doing the same for the opposing point of view. This add should have been run on their editorial page.

The NY TIMES can not be considered a reliable source of information.

That is the point of this post.

Every piece of news you read has some bias or other; the NYT is no more or less reliable then most of them.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

As usual, you and your other "loonies" on the left fail to address the issue of the post.

IMO, the NY Times can NOT be taken as an objective source of news since it has demonstrated in this case that they has a strong bias and will curry favors to Left Wing organizations while not doing the same for the opposing point of view. This add should have been run on their editorial page.

The NY TIMES can not be considered a reliable source of information.

That is the point of this post.

So what's your reaction now that parados has exploded the factual basis of your point? The NY Times did not curry favors to left wing organizations. They give discounts to customers -- any customers -- who schedule their advertizements on a standby basis. I haven't seen you address this point yet.

0 Replies

Quote:

So what's your reaction now that parados has exploded the factual basis of your point? The NY Times did not curry favors to left wing organizations. They give discounts to customers -- any customers -- who schedule their advertizements on a standby basis. I haven't seen you address this point yet.

I'm going to take a deep breath and hold it until woiyo and baldimo answer.

Joe(don't worry. It won't be long. hnnnnn)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
So what's your reaction now that parados has exploded the factual basis of your point? The NY Times did not curry favors to left wing organizations. They give discounts to customers -- any customers -- who schedule their advertizements on a standby basis. I haven't seen you address this point yet.

I'm going to take a deep breath and hold it until woiyo and baldimo answer.

Joe(don't worry. It won't be long. hnnnnn)Nation

Lib paper giving a deep discount to an ultra lib group? You really think they do this for everyone? It sure seems funny that they got the day they wanted for being standby status. Funny how things like this work out.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

woiyo wrote:
As usual, you and your other "loonies" on the left fail to address the issue of the post.

IMO, the NY Times can NOT be taken as an objective source of news since it has demonstrated in this case that they has a strong bias and will curry favors to Left Wing organizations while not doing the same for the opposing point of view. This add should have been run on their editorial page.

The NY TIMES can not be considered a reliable source of information.

That is the point of this post.

So what's your reaction now that parados has exploded the factual basis of your point? The NY Times did not curry favors to left wing organizations. They give discounts to customers -- any customers -- who schedule their advertizements on a standby basis. I haven't seen you address this point yet.

The quote did not come from Parados. It came from the NY POST's article which I posted.

No need for me to say anything about the Times so called discount since there is no way for me to prove that Move-On has "scheduled their ads on a stand-by basis", nor can I disprove the comment from the Times Employee.

I do doubt that Move On has "scheduled" stand by ads but that point is not really relevant to this discussion.

The reaction of the Times to Rudy's ad is what I find and the "loonies" refusal to address it, is what I find disgraceful.

0 Replies

Liberial Bias from the NYT.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know