Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Based on my limited exposure to the advertising industry, everyone gets a rate well below the rate card. So yes, probably not a real issue.
The part you are missing, Althouse, is that there is apparently a much higher rate that applies if one wants such things to appear on a specified date or dates. And the moveon.slime ad "just happened" to appear on the same exact day Petraeus spoke to congress. Pure coincidence, no doubt, as how could one possibly question the motives of your oft-quoted news source.
The other thing that this factiod alludes to is that the NYT is going down the toilet and can no longer defend its published advertising structure to "advertisers". If it is known that the going rate is 1/3 of the published rate, then there really are no published rates.
The real controversy anyway was over what ads they accepted and what ads they rejected, regardless of the rate they charged.
The other thing that this factiod alludes to is that the NYT is going down the toilet and can no longer defend its published advertising structure to "advertisers". If it is known that the going rate is 1/3 of the published rate, then there really are no published rates.I don't think this is specific to the NYT, although the NYT may be forced to give bigger discounts off the ratecard. All the newspapers are facing sharply declining advertising revenues. In any even, the published rates are just their first offer. Their salesmen are probably authorised to reduce that by a certain amount, to close a deal.
playing off Gahrie's point. If they allow an infrequent advertiser like moveon to place an ad on a specific page on a specific day at 65k, then recurring advertisers like Macy's should be able to get much larger price breaks for their more flexible requirements.NYT Stockholders :) It's your manager Pinch who is destroying the value of your stock. Compare your stock value over the last 5 years to either Murdocks or the WaPo.so over the last 5 years of Pinch leadersship, the NYT share price has fallen from 50 to 20, a decline of 60 percent.at the same time the evil Murdock and his Fox News have driven their price to twice what it was. 10 -> 20/shareand those upstart Grahams and their WaPo have increased their price by 1/3.Great work Pinch!!!
It's not fake. Right-wing groups have, in the past, had to pay more than MoveOn. (i.e., Freedom's Watch, or whatever it's called)NYT gave them the standby rate but let them choose the day it would run. "Standby" is supposed to mean that MoveOn would have to wait until nobody else wanted to advertise in the Times to get their ad in.The Times had to give Rudy an ad at the same rate or else the Betray Us ad would have counted as a massive political contribution to MoveOn, well over the legal limit. The Times would have been in trouble with the federal government and would have exposed CFR laws as a sham (which the Times does NOT want to do, the Times wants strong CFR laws because they increase the power of newspapers).If you think there's nothing here, Ann, then you're just buying into the NYT spin. That's what they want everyone to think. Do you really believe they would have given Rudy that discount but for the furor over the MoveOn ad?
They paid a rate comparable to standby but there is no indication whatsoever that this was purchased in a "standby" manner. If that were the case the ad could have run anywhere in the paper during a window of time..perhaps a few days (think travelocity and buying airline tickets).Does anyone think that the NYT ad sales department would shoot themselves in the foot like this? That is the part that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.The final chapter on this has yet to be written.
I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Its not like the NY Times would ever knowingly do something to attack the Bush administration...
Both sides are playing games ...Yes, it is a huge "coincidence" that a "standby" ad just "happened" to run when and where it did.It is also obvious that if the NYT rates ads are the conversation, then the issue posed by the ad isn't the conversation.
Note that the MoveOn.org included this quote: "Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."Someone was reasonably confident of the day it would actually run.
Of course if it didn't run on their favorite day I'm sure they would have been given an opportunity to edit. So that alone isn't conclusive by any means.
I'm sure it was just a coincidence. The NYT is totally impartial. -=Mike
hdhouse is right.
So, either the fuss over the MoveOn.org "General Betray Us" ad was always a fake, or the NYT has readjusted things to nullify the controversy. I think it was always a fake.The smart money says the NYT has readjusted things to nullify the controversy. The standby vs. specific day of run aspect is the tell.
I think that Giuliani called their bluff. Nothing more. As some have pointed out, if his ad had truly run standby, the paper would have been open to a charge of making an in-kind political contribution for which they would be subject to fine AND used as one more example of showing political bias.
OhioAnne,I agree. All this rate-talk is distracting us from the fact that MoveOn just questioned General Petraeus's patriotism over a difference of opinion regarding the Iraq War.As we have learned over the last six years, Democrats consider that totally inappropriate and indecent. Accordingly, they are certainly all loudly denouncing MoveOn, announcing the end of any association with the organization, and returning all campaign donations from the organization.So why are we hearing about the rate card, instead of the loud denunciations of MoveOn for its vileness?
"They paid a rate comparable to standby but there is no indication whatsoever that this was purchased in a "standby" manner."Other than them saying so, that is."If that were the case the ad could have run anywhere in the paper during a window of time.."Not anywhere in the paper, but any time in a window of time, as you said.That was always the weird part-- that MoveOn was able to tell everyone the exact day the ad was going to run. And Giuliani got the exact day he wanted it to run.There is a simple explanation, though, which fits in with another fact about the NYT that we know-- they have been struggling as a business. If they are not selling ads, then standby is as good as date certainty."Does anyone think that the NYT ad sales department would shoot themselves in the foot like this? That is the part that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever."Only if one thinks that because they are liberal they are immune from bouts of incompetence or political/public relations tin-ear-ness.And here's what I don't understand about our dust-up. My point all along was that this was a made up outrage, although based on truth. Why you wanted to battle that is beyond me.
Isn't the real story that a mere $65K can buy you a whole page in the front section of the NYT?Bet they were able to charge more than that in the 70s, in 70s dollars (at the very least, they were able to charge more than the cost of a 7 series BMW)I blame Reaganomics, or Freakonomics, or Hustlenomics.
Now if Rudy can only negotiate a new rate for his late night commercials for the hair club for men...all will be right with the world
I love it how conservatives show the following.1) They are against free enterprise2) They are against free speechThe New York Times can sell whatever ad it wants to, at whatever damned well price they please.Conservatives are now calling for a government investigation of this matter.You can't make this up.Funny, I wonder how they'd react when they realize that a hospital charges abut 90% less to insurance companies than they do to the uninsured who have to pay the "advertised price".
"Conservatives are now calling for a government investigation of this matter."I am all for an investigation into finding out if a law was broken, and if one was doing two things--1) punishing whoever broke that law, and2) repealing such a silly law.As it happens, the law is about in-kind contributions to political campaigns. Not being a fan of campaign finance laws, I think those laws should be repealed.However, if those laws are on the books, then they should be enforced and enforced equally.That said, this is nothing more than political posturing. It is clear that no law was broken. Someone is trying to make political hay, and they should pay the political price for doing so.
Steven - I agree. All this rate-talk is distracting us from the fact that MoveOn just questioned General Petraeus's patriotism over a difference of opinion regarding the Iraq War.So why are we hearing about the rate card, instead of the loud denunciations of MoveOn for its vileness?We ARE hearing denunciations of Moveon.org. Your tactic, it seems, is to deflect away criticism or questions on the NYTimes discount rate for certain groups in ideological solidarity with the Times Owners.It's a common tactic when several parties are involved in a problem for defenders of some to try and move attention or consequences away from those culpable Parties onto the One Single Guilty Party Responsible..And the American People are lazy. They do like all complex issues broken down to a Single Guilty Person (Osama bin Laden) or a Single Guilty Party (Moveon.org)The questions are important and may have lead to an investigation (if Reps still had a majority in Congress) of past NYTimes ad practices to see if they offered substantial discounts that should have been counted as Federal campaign contributions in kind. It may still lead to an independent Election Commission looking into if different media offered different rates to Left/Right 527 activists or the Parties.Drill SGT - NYT Stockholders :) It's your manager Pinch who is destroying the value of your stock. Compare your stock value over the last 5 years to either Murdocks or the WaPo.so over the last 5 years of Pinch leadersship, the NYT share price has fallen from 50 to 20, a decline of 60 percent.at the same time the evil Murdock and his Fox News have driven their price to twice what it was. 10 -> 20/share (WP up 35%).Unfortunately, the NYTimes created a legal, but problematic corporate entity when they went public that the SEC now rejects for others trying it. [All the benefits of public investment in ownership, listing as a publically traded equity, better tax code treatment than privately held.....but....all votes and control of Board and staff hires to the Sulzberger Family through a separate class of shares that my not be sold...]The financial tribulations of the NYTimes and its powerless (for now) common stock shareholders has been extensively written about in regular and in business media. Rudy, showing nimbleness and leadership that the Romney People wish they had considered, the Thompson people are incapable of, and McCain lacks the funds for - Hit the Trifecta.1. He bashed Moveon.or and by Proxy Code Pink, Hollywood, and the Soros Cabal. Red meat to the Base, which hates them all, with good reason.2. He embarassed the Times and may have pissed off a bunch of their regular advertisers paying more than Moveon.org did.3. He had a perfect chance to trash Hillary for refusing to denounce the slime job being done on Petraeus, undermine her past work to show voters she was pro-military....and did so.
Downtownlad -- I opposed the Independent Counsel statute. I similarly opposed the provision of the Violence Against Women Act that made a person's consensual sexual history admissible in sexual harassment cases. I supported George H. W. Bush's veto of both.However, after Bill Clinton went ahead and signed both into law, I can't tell you how much I appreciated seeing him forced to testify about his sexual history under the VAWA evidence rules, and then get run through the wringer for it by a man appointed under the Independent Counsel statute. Poetic justice is a beautiful thing; the enactors and supporters of a bad law deserve to be victims of it.Now, what the New York Times did, in my opinion, shouldn't be illegal. But the New York Times advocated the laws under which its own actions may have been illegal. It is accordingly perfectly appropriate that they suffer under it, while being wrong for those who did not advocate the law to be punished for violating the unjust law.
Cedarford --Er? I was using a rhetorical trick to add a criticism of the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and every other Democrat who ever denounced someone for attacking another's patriotism, but who haven't come out and attacked MoveOn for the same thing.
Manufactured outrage is a stock trick. Republicans are very good at it. I thought the ad was fair. This is an openly political general, giving us some real bullshit numbers. Notice how the substance of MoveOn's documented criticism is not addressed. Only the horror that they would criticize a general with epaulets and everything. No Banana Republican would ever criticize the military.
AlphaLiberal - I thought the ad was fair. This is an openly political general, giving us some real bullshit numbers.No Alpha. Part of the "deal" we have in our system is that we don't drag currently serving military into politics and they in turn do not show up in Iowa with a collection of Admirals and Generals offering an election alternative to Republicans and Democrats - a ruling junta of military.That separation has served us well. You don't attack serving military to get political points, and for that you get no Schwartzkopf, Marshall, Admiral Dewey, Russell Honore` asking for a break in their military duties to run for office. AFTER they leave the military and sever ties and run as a civilian instead of frontman for a junta - we have no problem with the Jacksons, Grants, Eisenhowers, or the lesser "war hero" types running with their military service part of their "credibility" for leadership and executive decision-making and character..That does not mean there aren't "politically focused" officers like Colin Powell or Wesley Clarke. That doesn't mean that officers haven't blundered as lying PR whores like in the "she was a fighting hellcat" Jessica Lynch myth, the Pat Tillman fiasco.Nor that certain officers in over-deference to civilian leadership (another good US practice) completely avoid coming up like "Yessir, yessir 3 bags full, sir" toady-boys of McNamara, Truman, Rumsfeld, Bush...Reforms are needed..elected leaders should have control over military appointments but not the One-Senator veto because some 2-Star did not grovel enough to the Senator's ego, or DOD civilian brass punishing those that buck them with O-6 and above career retaliation - because it is death not to be promoted on track in an up-or-out organization.Better the military have an objectively arrived at Senior Promotion List, and let elected officials explain why they will deviate from it.And the military does need more to fix it's revolving door program. The Admiral that champions a new ship or aircraft that ends up working for the vendor? As bad as the lawyer that displays the proper ideology in Gov't that ends up being a well-paid AT&T or Soros or Saudi flunky when they get out of Gov't.But the deal of no partisan political attacks on the character of serving military, sliming the troops or leaders - is a pretty bright line Moveon.org crossed and got properly lambasted for. Just as we would lambaste an aspiring junta of active duty military crossing the line and proposing they run the Presidency or some State.
Alpha Liberal: When the GOP, and others whom you abhor, start regularly using full-page ads, radio and television to coerce and intimate individual career civil servants by name merely because they are performing, or are about to perform, their mandated duties, you will rue the day you joined moveon.org in widening the scope of the politics of personal destruction beyond professional politicians engaged in electioneering. While it is possible that you are too smug or stupid to realize what it is that you, they, and the New York Times have legitimized, I think that you are going to be forcefully reminded of it again, and again, and again over the years, and those reminders, as well as their consequences, are not going to make you happy at all.
Greenspan Says Iraq War Was About Oil
What Alan Greenspan actually wrote was:I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.Nothing more.
Post a Comment