Posted by
rycK on Thursday, September 27, 2007 1:02:23 PM
Here is what the New York Times published about their criminal activity by giving MoveOn.com a break on their full page ad: [1]
MoveOn.org said yesterday that it paid The New York Times $77,508 after the newspaper revealed that its advertising department had undercharged the organization for an advertisement that ran two weeks ago and proved controversial.
Here, MoveOn and the NYT try to avoid a federal crime by abrogating a payment in kind to a political client in violation of federal election law. Pinch Sulzberger and his Pinch Puddles show bias and unprofessional conduct all the time. [2] This is equivalent to a mugger hammering out the brains some some old lady for her welfare check and then returning the stolen hammer to the hardware store. Liberal logic in full acceleration.
The newspaper had maintained that it charged MoveOn the same standby rate of $64,575 that it charges all advocacy groups for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that can run anytime in a seven-day window. But the newspapers spokeswoman, Catherine Mathis, was quoted Sunday by The Timess public editor, Clark Hoyt, as saying an advertising sales representative had made a mistake in granting the discount.
A mistake? Is it a mistake that the picture of Walter Duranty shines down on the boorish faces of the NYT staff with his Pulitzer Prize from his exalted Marxist position high on the wall? Duranty was a disgusting liar and parasite and darling of the NYT who struggled to show Uncle Joe Stalin in his best light with lies if necessary. They did the same thing for our enemies in Viet Nam. Anything to support our enemies is the hidden motto of the NYT.
The sales representative should have charged $142,083, she said, because MoveOn wanted the advertisement to run on a specific day Monday, Sept. 10 and was therefore not entitled to the standby rate.
Mr. Hoyt had concluded in his column that the advertisement appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.
In response, Ms. Mathis said: The public editor serves as the readers representative; his opinions and conclusions are his own. The Times believes the ad was within our acceptability guidelines.
So, this was not a personal attack???
She said transparency was difficult for newspapers as they faced financial pressures. The changes in advertising rates because of the Internet make transparency less likely and less possible, she said. The result, she said, is that the people who mistrust journalism are going to assign bias as the motive for the discount to MoveOn, even though news and advertising departments are separate.
The American Conservative Union has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against both The Times and MoveOn. It said The Times violated federal rules because corporations cannot make campaign donations. It said MoveOns acceptance of the rate was a violation because the contribution was over the legal limit.
We know that the New York Times is a crude propaganda machine that resembles some instrument that grinds and puts out filtered news in the manner that a sausage machine spurts out brats.
Among the critics has been the American Spectator, which wrote: The New York Times in the past has rejected advocacy ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [Editorial note by rycK: This has been disputed and denied by S.B.V. see footnote: [3]] , 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.[4]
Mr. Jespersen said in the telephone interview that the advertising department had rejected a right-to-life ad because it contained an illustration that did not meet the papers standards of taste. It had nothing to do with the message of the group, he said.
Are we to believe that the NYT is Fair and Balanced??
From Washington Prowler we get the following:[5]
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.
Was Walter Duranty given no special treatment when he wrote phony articles from Moscow denying the gulags and horrors of Stalin??
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.
Sure. We need some conservative and other organizations to query the NYT about certain ads they might wish to run and share rejection notices. Political reciprocal courtesy requires that the Sulzberger staff reject any ads that would give the non-leftist or non-communist Americans some voice in their yellow rag.
Somebody set up a sting here and expose these political parasites parading as being non biased.
rycK
[3] http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/cheney-jumps-into-fray-over-moveon-ad/. As for the Swift Boat veterans group, which in the 2004 presidential campaign questioned Senator John Kerrys military record, it never tried to place an ad with The New York Times, according to Mike Russell, communications director for the Swift Boat group.There was never an effort to mock up an ad for The New York Times and there was never any refusal for any ad copy because none was submitted, Mr. Russell said.