NY Times Admits Moveon.org Petraeus AD Violated Policy

[reasonable]

"The New York Times acknowledged Sunday that a controversial advertisement attacking Gen. David Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, was sold to a liberal activist group at a discount rate the organization was not entitled to receive, and that the paper violated its own advertising policies when it published the ad.

In a column published Sunday entitled, "Betraying Its Own Best Interests," Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt wrote that after reviewing the Times' policies regarding the sale and content of advertisements and conducting his own investigation of the matter, "I think the ad violated the Times' own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to."

According to the column, MoveOn.org purchased the ad at a "standby" rate of $64,575 when it should have been charged $142,083. To receive standby rates, advertisers cannot be guaranteed a date when their ads will run, but the sales representative who sold the ad to MoveOn.org told the organization that the ad would run on Monday, Sept. 10—the day that Petraeus was to appear before Congress..."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297745,00...

There. Any questions now from the usual haters on these fora?

[Transplanted]

Hang close .....

Dan Coates and Chuck Zimmerman will be along with the ENTIRE cast of Left Winged Secular Progressives to denounce your story.

WHo knows ...George Soros and Rebecca Peters might make an appearance also ...

LOL

Moveon and Orgs like them will destroy the Democratic Party .....just let them be ...

The Democratic Candidates that DID NOT denounce Moveon' tactics ......speaks volumes

[Mtnbred]

thanks reasonable for the last rays of summer.

also thanks for also pointing out about media bias.

[Clyde Nocar]

I wish they would give away space to these left wing KooKs. Let their Socialist/Communist views be spread to the four winds.

[Satyam]

The ad was a major SNAFU, no doubt about it. Yet the wording was in question form. I surely do not want to make the same mistake but I would point out that a man does not rise to such a high rank without playing politics. Those that fail to see which side the bread is buttered go nowhere fast.

Generals serve at the pleasure of the CC. Patreaus is not the first and probably will not be the last unless he follows strict orders and does not rock the boat. Our president wants yes men. All claims he makes to listening to the commanders in the field are false.

MoveOn's error was in expecting anything more from the man and Bush was disingenuous to put the General in that position in the first place. The CC is the only man who should have faced congress. Bush thought better of such a move thus hid behind a chest full of medals and ribbons.

Honestly I think the Congress should have the power to demand a personal appearance by the president. The General should have remained at work.

[Transplanted]

Well.....thats 1 Reas.....

As the Barber says.......Next LOL

[reasonable]

Transplanted wrote:

Well.....thats 1 Reas.....
As the Barber says.......Next LOL

:)

[reasonable]

Mtnbred wrote:

thanks reasonable for the last rays of summer.
also thanks for also pointing out about media bias.

You're very welcome, my friend. Today's a beauty, huh?

[reasonable]

Satyam wrote:

The ad was a major SNAFU, no doubt about it. Yet the wording was in question form. I surely do not want to make the same mistake but I would point out that a man does not rise to such a high rank without playing politics. Those that fail to see which side the bread is buttered go nowhere fast.
Generals serve at the pleasure of the CC. Patreaus is not the first and probably will not be the last unless he follows strict orders and does not rock the boat. Our president wants yes men. All claims he makes to listening to the commanders in the field are false.
MoveOn's error was in expecting anything more from the man and Bush was disingenuous to put the General in that position in the first place. The CC is the only man who should have faced congress. Bush thought better of such a move thus hid behind a chest full of medals and ribbons.
Honestly I think the Congress should have the power to demand a personal appearance by the president. The General should have remained at work.

I know that's how you feel, Satyam, but that's not how it works. And, it's the same for all POTUS. Bush is not the be all, end all. You can certainly recall every previous President in your lifetime doing what they thought was correct, right?

Kennedy and Bay of Pigs and Missle Crisis fiasco

LBJ and the Great Society spending that no one wanted; Gulf of Tonkin

Nixon and Watergate

Ford and the Pardon

Carter and, well it's hard to begin...

And on and on.

Bush is STILL President no matter how anyone feels. And what a great country we live in!

[IWantMyCountryBa ck]

Statement by Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Political Action Executive Director, Resolving the New York Times Ad Rate Issue

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/-- In the Public Editor column of today's New York Times, the Times' vice president admits that, without the knowledge or consent of MoveOn.org Political Action, the Times "made a mistake" in charging MoveOn its standby rate of $65,000 for the advertisement run on Monday September 10. According to the Public Editor, the Times' vice president admitted that the company's advertising representative "failed to make it clear that for that rate the Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then." According to the Public Editor, "the group should have paid $142,083."

Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad. We will therefore wire the $77,083 difference to the Times tomorrow (Monday, September 24, 2007).

We call on Mayor Giuliani, who received exactly the same ad deal for the same price, to pay the corrected fee also.

The Public Editor's column makes crystal clear that at no time did MoveOn have any reason to believe that it was receiving from the Times anything other than the normal and usual charge for the advertisement. And there is no evidence of any kind that the error in quoting of rates was in any way based on the content of the advertisement or the identity of its sponsor. Of course, MoveOn believed that it was engaged in an arms length negotiation regarding advertising rates with the Times and assumed that it was being quoted advertising prices consistent with the Times' usual and normal charge.

MoveOn continues, of course, to stand by the content of the advertisement and to urge citizens and their elected representatives in the Congress to focus on the continued dishonesty of the Bush Administration and the American blood and treasure being lost in a war for which the Administration has no exit strategy. Certainly that issue is more worthy of the attention of the electorate and the media than the mistake of an advertising representative or the wording of an advertisement.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl... ...

[Transplanted]

I guess they have nothing to say huh Reas?

[Liberals sux]

Moveon.borg bunch of freaking commies.

[Raz Lemons]

You guys should team up for a political hack team , You could blend your handles to become "sux liberals reasonably" LOL what a bunch of losers you guys are !! Now I would take the time and bandwidth to explain the perception of what is and isn't a politically correct organization but with your combined third grade educations it would just fly over your heads so ya'll just head on back to the little boys room and continue playing with eachother

[Transplanted]

Raz Lemons wrote:

You guys should team up for a political hack team , You could blend your handles to become "sux liberals reasonably" LOL what a bunch of losers you guys are !! Now I would take the time and bandwidth to explain the perception of what is and isn't a politically correct organization but with your combined third grade educations it would just fly over your heads so ya'll just head on back to the little boys room and continue playing with eachother

Spoken like a true kook who has no rebuttal ......just more ilk ..

[Liberals sux]

Raz Lemons wrote:

You guys should team up for a political hack team , You could blend your handles to become "sux liberals reasonably" LOL what a bunch of losers you guys are !! Now I would take the time and bandwidth to explain the perception of what is and isn't a politically correct organization but with your combined third grade educations it would just fly over your heads so ya'll just head on back to the little boys room and continue playing with eachother

Kool aid anyone??

[Ticker]

Transplanted wrote:

<quoted text>
Spoken like a true kook who has no rebuttal ......just more ilk ..

Dang, you beat me to the punch. So I'll just add a hearty, YEP!

[rickm]

I used to vote Dem....crap like this - especially attacking someone based on their name - is driving me, and many "conservative Dems" away. Nice job.

[Transplanted]

Ticker wrote:

<quoted text>
Dang, you beat me to the punch. So I'll just add a hearty, YEP!

I knew not a soul would dare to step into this thread...

I cant believe Chuck and Dan are nowhere to be found LOL

[1911-govt]

IWantMyCountryBack wrote:

Statement by Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Political Action Executive Director, Resolving the New York Times Ad Rate Issue
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/-- In the Public Editor column of today's New York Times, the Times' vice president admits that, without the knowledge or consent of MoveOn.org Political Action, the Times "made a mistake" in charging MoveOn its standby rate of $65,000 for the advertisement run on Monday September 10. According to the Public Editor, the Times' vice president admitted that the company's advertising representative "failed to make it clear that for that rate the Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then." According to the Public Editor, "the group should have paid $142,083."
Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad. We will therefore wire the $77,083 difference to the Times tomorrow (Monday, September 24, 2007).
We call on Mayor Giuliani, who received exactly the same ad deal for the same price, to pay the corrected fee also.
The Public Editor's column makes crystal clear that at no time did MoveOn have any reason to believe that it was receiving from the Times anything other than the normal and usual charge for the advertisement. And there is no evidence of any kind that the error in quoting of rates was in any way based on the content of the advertisement or the identity of its sponsor. Of course, MoveOn believed that it was engaged in an arms length negotiation regarding advertising rates with the Times and assumed that it was being quoted advertising prices consistent with the Times' usual and normal charge.
MoveOn continues, of course, to stand by the content of the advertisement and to urge citizens and their elected representatives in the Congress to focus on the continued dishonesty of the Bush Administration and the American blood and treasure being lost in a war for which the Administration has no exit strategy. Certainly that issue is more worthy of the attention of the electorate and the media than the mistake of an advertising representative or the wording of an advertisement.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl... ...

The Times also admitted that allowing personal attack ads violates its advertising policy.

Seems that one "slipped by" also.

That said, the NYT can charge whomever it wants whatever it wants....its a private business. The point is that it is NOT an unbiased news source as they would want us to believe.

[reasonable]

Raz Lemons wrote:

You guys should team up for a political hack team , You could blend your handles to become "sux liberals reasonably" LOL what a bunch of losers you guys are !! Now I would take the time and bandwidth to explain the perception of what is and isn't a politically correct organization but with your combined third grade educations it would just fly over your heads so ya'll just head on back to the little boys room and continue playing with eachother

Bless its pointed little head! I think it just blew up from the strain of a 4-sentence piece of nonsense! I'd say you are a classic pinhead but I wouldn't want to sully Zippy's memory.