SubscribeNYT Gives Secret “Standby” Rate For Lefty Ads
First, a laughable example of what passes for journalism from the New York Daily Worker News:
Giuliani gets facts wrong in blast at paper
By David Saltonstall
Rudy Giuliani made points with conservatives.
NEW YORK — For former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, it was the perfect trifecta, a way to slam The New York Times, Hillary Clinton and the liberal, anti-war MoveOn.org group in one fell swoop.
All Giuliani needed was one bogus newspaper story and $64,575 in campaign cash, both of which the Republican presidential hopeful used Thursday to spawn a bonanza of free publicity in the conservative blogosphere.
Giuliani, a Republican presidential hopeful, began the day by accusing The New York Times of selling the Democrat-friendly MoveOn a “heavily discounted” ad Monday that cast U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”
The ad appeared on the morning of Petraeus’ first appearance before Congress to testify about conditions in Iraq. The ad accused Petraeus of “cooking the books” for the White House…
Republican candidates blasted the ad as an unpatriotic smear of a revered general, and on Thursday, Giuliani accused The New York Times, MoveOn and Democratic presidential foe Clinton — who has refused to denounce the ad — of engaging in “character assassination.”
“What we should move on with … is a civil discourse without name-calling,” Giuliani said in Atlanta, after demanding that his campaign be given the same “discounted rate” to run a pro-Petraeus ad today.
But Giuliani’s facts were challenged.
Any advocacy group seeking to place a single, full-page, black-and-white ad in The New York Times on “standby” over a seven-day period — the paper picks the day — pays what MoveOn did, $64,575, sources said.
The New York Post reported that The New York Times charges a higher rate, $181,692, setting up erroneous reports that MoveOn got a “lefty” discount. But the higher price is for ads guaranteed to run on a specific day, said New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis…
Though, indeed, that is what the New York Times is now claiming:
Angered by an Antiwar Ad, Giuliani Seeks Equal Space
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: September 14, 2007
…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…
What a laugh. If The Times can’t disclose what they charge for ads, why do they publish rate cards?
And sure, a “standby” rate does seem to exist. But it is no where to be found on any of the NYT’s meticulously detailed rate cards.
However, as we have noted previously, The Times did offer a “standby” rate to a group calling itself Returned Peace Corps Volunteers for an ad against the Iraq war in February 2003, even before the war began.
Maybe the exact publication date of the RPCV ad wasn’t important to them. Or, what seems more likely, this secret “standby” rate is only offered to groups who say what the NYT wants said.
In any case, it is obvious to anyone with half a working brain that MoveOn.org’s “Betray Us” ad was guaranteed to run on the first day of his testimony before Congress.
Why run it otherwise?
But how hilarious it is that this was too difficult for the New York Daily News to figure out.
And as the Prowler at American Spectator points out:
The New York Times MovesOn
By The Prowler
Published 9/14/2007The New York Times in the past has rejected “advocacy” ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as well as from the National Right to Life Committee, despite the fact that both would have qualified for the same “special advocacy, stand by” rates that the radical, left-wing organization MoveOn.org was given for its smear ad of Gen. David Petraeus…
The Times claimed that MoveOn was given no special treatment, but several organizations that sought to place ads in a similar manner in past years have been turned away or were told that the ads were bumped for higher paying ads.
According to a former New York Times ad sales staffer, a coalition of pro-life groups attempted to take out a full-page ad in the Times during the Terri Schiavo debate in Congress, but were turned away. “I think that such a group would have qualified for our advocacy discount, but perhaps the policies changed in the past couple of years,” says the ad rep.
Similarly, during the 2004 election season, a representative from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sought to place a full-page ad in the paper, but was turned away.
The MoveOn staffer said that the organization was made aware of the discount from a New York Times reporter based in New York.
So not only does The Times give their co-religionists secret steep discounts, they won’t even run full price ads for any cause that does not advance their agenda.
Yet the New York Times claims they don’t base their ad rates “on political content.”
No, of course they don’t.
Related Articles:
- Giuliani Runs (NYT Discounted) Anti-Hillary Ad
- NYT Gave $116K Discount For "Betray Us" Ad
- WP Lies To Cover For Democrats On MoveOn Ad
- MoveOn's Despicable "General Betray Us" Ad
- Soros Is Funding 24/7 Stalking Of Congress
- MoveOn Goes To Bat For Their Comrades At PBS
- Companies Advertising In The New York Times
- NYT: US Never Needed Us More Than Today
- MoveOn, Google Want To Control The Internet
- AP: Soros/MoveOn Is "Grassroots Movement"
- "Read An American Newspaper" - Not The NYT
- MoveOn Protests Layoffs Of Reporter Comrades
- MoveOn Blinks - Pulls Anti-Roberts "Katrina Ads"
6 Responses to “NYT Gives Secret “Standby” Rate For Lefty Ads”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Conversation around the table last night produced a fascinating comment from a reformed Liberal (now son-in-law). “These people lie when there’s no need to lie.” He was speaking of the Clintons, Reid, Pelosi, Carville, et al inter-alia. “What kind of person lies routinely, even when it makes no difference?” Then he mimed Clinton walking into a room, hand extended to shake hands, “Hello”, he lied. You know, like that!
The lad is on to something profound. The truth is not in them. And they’ve lied so long and so often, I don’t think they can tell anymore what is real and what is a fiction of their madness.
September 15th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
The truth is not the issue. It is the cause that matters. “David Horowitz - Rising Son”
“What is Truth?” — Pontius Pilate.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
The Pro Troop Rally in Washington, today, isn’t getting one bit of MSM coverage. It’s all about OJ. From what I’ve been told…. thousands of Pro Troop supporters, MAF,GOE,Freedom Watch etc, arrived in Washington to counter the Move-on /Soros minions “die in”rally. Also, to let the Dems. Congress know that they don’t speak for the majority of Americans. We get media coverage on all of the Code Pink, CS, the illegals, etc. dumb rallies but when it comes to supporting the Troops…………………****** crickets********
I am disgusted!
September 15th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Most of the stories I’ve seen on the protests/counter-protests contain information on both. For instance, in the linked AP story, there are 10 paragraphs. One paragraph is devoted to setting up the story (contains information on both), 3 paragraphs talk about the protestors and 6 paragraphs talk about GOE, Duncan Hunter etc.. So for this story at least, the coverage is what I would consider fair and balanced. Surprising since it’s an AP story. Also surprising is that the snaggo isn’t mentioned, code pinko isn’t mentioned and the always lovely medea benjamin isn’t mentioned. The only anti-way organization they do mention is ANSWER Coalition.
http://tinyurl.com/2czmkk
September 16th, 2007 at 1:26 am
I remeber watching fox news and one of the guests tried to put in an article earlier and had to have it in the friday before 9/11 but moveon.org was supposively still in talks with NYT for their “stand-by” add that just happened to run on 9/11, real coincidence there huh? I once actually like reading the times before I realized how slanted and craptastic it was. Only section I really like was the science section that came out once a week and when it became all about global warming and PETA, I switched to other sources for my news.
I also saw the “die in” rally on fox, what a bunch of idiots there. The one person they had interviewed there just couldn’t seem to have an original thought. It was all “Bush lied”, we’re there for oil, the troops are rapists and baby killers, we should have never been there, Vietnam, Bush evil, ect. It seemed like a rapid fire of all the leftist crap that gets put out there by these groups. I love how she said she knew all this from her teachers and reading her history book and was exercising her first ammendment rights. I have to say that I survived public education in the liberal haven of massachuesettes, didn’t help that some teachers started in the fifth grade cramming liberals are good, conservatives are bad down our throats. I think I was one of a handful of conservative students there, there were even less teachers that weren’t left wing nuts. Only two I can think of were a US history teacher who had taught for 40 years and was extremely right wing and my physics teach int high school who had a doctorate in electrical engineering in russia, hated socialism. Everything taught in the school was how bad the US was in “oppressing” the other nations of the world. I have to say though I didn’t get that in my math or science classes, of course I took the advanced ones, the lower level ones had some of the biggest flaming PETA and moveon.org folks you have ever seen. I noticed that many of the teachers of any quality and conservative leanings tended to leave and go to administration at the really rich town public schools or private catholic schools. That left us with all the nuts who indoctrinated kids into being left wing nuts you see on TV protesting all the time or getting useless degrees in something and then spending all their time protesting and/or working for Obama and CO. campaigns and/or running traitorious groups like moveon, may they all burn in the fire pits below (angry catholic channeling old testement god there for a minute).
September 17th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
It seems as if NYT confessed to breaking the “fairness doctrine” laws. What happened to equal time for opposing veiwpoints? Why does the NYT get away with denying ad space–even though at inflated rates–to political viewpoints the NYT editorial staff disagrees with?
Enron spawned SOX–and this bit of corporate mismanagement by the NYT may have violated the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which demands that publically traded companies (NYT is on the stock market and subject to SOX) provide stockholders and the public with full records of how publically-traded corporations handle business and finances. Whe I remember how the NYT treated Enron’s criminals, I think it would be poetic justice to nail them for unfair trade practices (Sherman Anti-Trust act) and bunches of other illegal business crimes.