Liberial Bias from the NYT.

You really think they do this for everyone?

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.

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.

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

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company

Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid.

Baldimo wrote:

You really think they do this for everyone?

Why not? And how do you know they wanted Monday in the first place? It's your allegation that something fishy is going on here. That makes it your job to prove it. Until you do, it doesn't matter what we, the so-called liberal loonies, think.

woiyo wrote:

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.

You haven't established that apart from hot air, Giulliani's ad contains any substance for us to address. Once you do, maybe you'll get a satisfactory reaction.

Thomas wrote:

Baldimo wrote:

You really think they do this for everyone?

Why not? And how do you know they wanted Monday in the first place? It's your allegation that something fishy is going on here. That makes it your job to prove it. Until you do, it doesn't matter what we, the so-called liberal loonies, think.

woiyo wrote:

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.

You haven't established that apart from hot air, Giulliani's ad contains any substance for us to address. Once you do, maybe you'll get a satisfactory reaction.

What I have established is the Times so far will not run the ad at the same price they gave to Move On. The article only suggests that Rudy's ad was a rebuttle to Move On. I have not oferred an opinion as to the content of Move On's ad as it is irrelevant to the main point.

The point is the Times seems to curry favor to left wing organizations and have a different set of rules for anyone else.

Am I wrong?

What I have established is the Times so far will not run the ad at the same price they gave to Move On.

Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid.

Am I wrong?

woiyo wrote:

What I have established is the Times so far will not run the ad at the same price they gave to Move On.

Let me repeat from your own source, the Boston globe article:

The Boston Globe wrote:

Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid.

woiyo wrote:

Am I wrong?

Yes you are, and not only that. The embarrassing thing is that you could have easily figured that out by yourself. All you had to do was read your own source -- the whole Boston Globe article that you quoted.

That quote came from the Globe link YOU provided. What I posted earlier today did not contain that quote (which seems odd)..

"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.

woiyo wrote:

The Boston Globe wrote:

Someone with knowledge of the price said the Giuliani campaign paid $65,000, which MoveOn.org has said was the same price it paid.

That quote came from the Globe link YOU provided. What I posted earlier today did not contain that quote (which seems odd)..

It's right in the middle of your post on the first page of this thread.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2852848#2852848

You're probably the only one who can tell us why you didn't see it.

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.

So who is the "SOMEONE" anyway?

Dear NewsMax Reader:

MoveOn.org, well-known for its character assassinations on Republicans,
participated in a character assassination on an American General.

Before General David Petraeus could gave even a word of testimony to Congress about our brave men and women in uniform overseas in Iraq, MoveOn.org, aided by an enormous discount at the New York Times,

[blahblah rudydoody blahblah]

Please review my ad here and make a contribution to set the record straight.

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