Confirmed: NYT gave MoveOn almost two-thirds off on “Betray Us” ad; Update: Pro-war group says it was charged “significantly more” for its ad
posted at 11:10 am on September 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I’m embarrassed to say that I’m surprised. Given the amount they stood to make and the obvious appearance of sympathy with the “Betray Us” message that would come if they gave them a deal, they couldn’t possibly have done what Bob Owens accused them of doing, I thought. But they did.
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.”
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday…
Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the “family discount.”
Maybe it’s because they thought a nonprofit like MoveOn couldn’t afford to pay the full rate? Er … no, it can’t be that. Like the man says, the only obvious explanation is the family discount. Lesson learned: never underestimate the Times.
They’ve probably lost at least one reader over it. Oh well. Exit question: What kind of deal do you suppose Silky got on this?
Update: Yeah, surprise.
New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis tells me that it’s Times policy to not “disclose the rate that any one advertiser pays for an ad. The rate that is charged for an ad will depend on a variety of factors including how frequently the advertiser advertises with us, the day of the week, is it color, is it black and white, what section it appears, all of those kinds of things.”…
Mathis points out that on September 11, 2007, “we published a full-page advertisement from Freedom’sWatch.org, an organization whose view is opposite of MoveOn.org.”
Freedom’s Watch spokesman Matt David, however tells me the group was charged “significantly more” than MoveOn.org for its ad. The organization says it plans to run a response to the MoveOn.org NYT ad in the Times, “and we plan to demand the same ad rate they paid,” David says.
Update: Word on the Hill from Politico is that the MoveOn was a “blunder of the highest order.” Says savvy nutroots pointman for America’s new Democratic center Matt Stoller, “I think it’s awesome. I’m glad MoveOn said it. There’s very little split in the Democrats who, I think, basically believe Petraeus is a partisan shill.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
This only adds to the disgust I have not only for the Slimes but for the entire rest of the MSM, who while condemning Moveon.org have given the Slimes a complete free pass on the fact that they actually printed this garbage. As far as I am concerned the Slimes are equally guilty for having run the ad as Moveon for having come up with it. The Slimes needs to be held responsible and in my book that means being charged with libel.
doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 11:15 AM
C’mon AP — why on earth would you be surprised by this? They obviously don’t care about appearances — they only want to promote their own agenda. They lean so far to the left that I keep expecting the Earth’s rotation to become unstable. Seriously, I heard that there were some other groups that contacted the Slimes about placing full-page ads that were more balanced, and they were quoted the full rate. Surprise!
lan astaslem on September 13, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Wow, that walks the line between slimy and really slimy. You’d almost think this is entirely for show just to get more cash. But, I know Silky would never resort to such a tactic, right?
Wineaholic on September 13, 2007 at 11:17 AM
It happens to us all.
Esthier on September 13, 2007 at 11:17 AM
their shareholders should be outraged.
this proves once again that the business of media/news is the one area of Capitalism that is the exception. They are not concerned with profits, just their power and message to indoctrinate the people.
although, I guess its similar to a mom and pop shop refusing to sell Playboy when it would increase their bottom line. It reflects their morality, much like MoveOn reflects the NYT’s.
jp on September 13, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Beware of the media-leftist complex!
But then again the Old York Times is hemorrhaging $$ big time. Pinchy Sulzberger doesn’t want to get on George Soros’ bad side. Therefore, the unholy alliance continues…..
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on September 13, 2007 at 11:18 AM
sorry… should have read the full post before commenting. ::blush::
lan astaslem on September 13, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Yet, Nancy Pelosi probably thinks the NYT reporters ask “objective” questions.
Mallard T. Drake on September 13, 2007 at 11:19 AM
All over Fox now. Allah reports, we decide.
Kid from Brooklyn on September 13, 2007 at 11:22 AM
So it was Moveon’s idea but the NYT paid most of the bill, I wonder?
d1carter on September 13, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Best comeback I’ve heard in some time!
Obviously, the NYT can sell advertising space in their pathetic little publication for whatever rate they set but there is something troubling when the journalistic lines blur with political activism. This should be a scandal among the media but, it will be dismissed- it always is. Then all will express shock when the NYT subcriptions plummet to yet another low.
highhopes on September 13, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Maybe there was just a Blue Light Special on treason that day.
(Yeah, I know–treason is free all day, every day at the Slimes. Work with me here.)
ReubenJCogburn on September 13, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I’m betting more will abandon this sinking ship. “Growth” estimate for the current quarter is -69.2%.
lan astaslem on September 13, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I pretty much look at the Times as a bunch of Kos kids nowadays anyway. Anti-Americanism is the tie that binds in liberal land.
John Edwards Blog is a total flop. During the height of the Marcotte fiasco there would be hundreds of comments on each article. Today they get very few and those are probably from the staff.
J.E. has lost a lot of his early supporters. I sometimes think he and others are paid to run just to make the others look
goodbetter.Guardian on September 13, 2007 at 11:29 AM
I’m not so sure you can claim cause and effect here.
Not to defend the ad, but think about it for a second.
If Moveon has a contract with the NYT, they could get discounted rates on all their ads. I have a contract with my local paper and I get like 40% off help wanted ads any time I place one - the paper assumes it gives me the incentive to place more ads.
The same with actual paper ads. If you buy ads all the time (or often enough), you will get a huge discount off them because you are a reliable customer. It’s a lot easier to get you to buy a new ad than to find a new company to buy that spot.
I’m not sure a “family discount” or whatever you all are calling it is fair. Sure, it fits the template, but that doesn’t mean its what happened here.
lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 11:31 AM
NYT has hit a new low. Just when I thought they couldn’t go any lower too. I’ll bet their shareholders are thrilled too.
Perhaps now would be a good time to short the stock, oh wait, I’m about a year too late.
swami on September 13, 2007 at 11:31 AM
I wouldn’t line my birdcage with the NY Slime!
kiakjones on September 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM
Ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. This is suicidal behavior, it defies all reason.
I will have fun lambasting anyone I see buying a copy at Starbucks. “You read that agitprop, really?” I was able to convince a friend of mine to cancel his subscription to the LA Times. That felt good. This will feel even better.
Theworldisnotenough on September 13, 2007 at 11:35 AM
The reporter who anonymously called the NYT advertising department and found out the real price of such an ad should call back and say he’s Newt Gingrich and wants to place a pro-conservative ad. Bet the price would double.
aero on September 13, 2007 at 11:36 AM
When you put this in the context of liberals being afraid of the influence Murdoch will gain by purchasing the WSJ, it becomes even more telling.
Weight of Glory on September 13, 2007 at 11:37 AM
lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Loren,
Every newspaper gives discounts for help wanted ads. It was one of the first points of revenue to dry up for print media with the advent of the internet and a host of job sites where you can post for free. Heck, most companies just post their openings on their own websites. If you know the right filters to use on google, every opening that matches your particular background will pop up.
NYT shouldn’t get a pass, they are now tied to the Move on loons for eternity.
swami on September 13, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Moveon.org places ads in the NYT on a regular basis? Are you able to provide evidence to support yout theory?
Theworldisnotenough on September 13, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Sorry, you are wrong, NYT would say they could not run the ads because they are deemed hate or too controversial.
right2bright on September 13, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Ok, I thought for a second, the ad was totally unacceptable and yet the Slimes ran it anyway, that makes the Slimes are responsible as Moveon, period end of story.
doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Free no doubt.
conservnut on September 13, 2007 at 11:42 AM
It’s not about the HW ads, you totally missed the point. The point is that discounts from newspapers/tv/radio ads are a piece of cake.
How do you think media buying companies work? They get huge discounts from fox news, cnn, msnbc and pass on some of those savings to people who purchase the airtime from them. They pocket the difference.
The same works for radio or TV. Call up a station and ask to buy a 30 second spot. Then open an account and speak to a marketing sales guy; you’ll get some pretty sweet discounts off those rates. Just gotta ask the right person. It’s very common in the media world.
We’ve all seen the previous ads. Proof isn’t even necessary. You can get a good discount from your local paper by talking to the right sales guy. It’s really not difficult at all.
Another case in point. Three or four years ago, I ran ads on a local tv station here and I got 35% off the ad rates for simply saying I’ll let the thing run for a month. So, in essence, I got about a week and half free for doing what I was gonna do anyways.
lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 11:42 AM
There’s a difference between discount and a token payment..
Guardian on September 13, 2007 at 11:43 AM
I agree. The ad is a piece of crap and that’s the proper way to approach this. NYT should have better quality control over what runs and what doesn’t. But complaining about a discount? Come on.
lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 11:44 AM
The discount is a case of adding insult to injury. Their running the ad was bad enough, but their giving a 60% discount to such a foul and disgusting ad amounts to a endorsement of that ad, which is why the discount deserves being commented on.
doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Attached at the hip to the New York Times,
Priceless.
fogw on September 13, 2007 at 11:54 AM
I’d say more responsible. I could argue the ad was actually a NYT funded ad, with the MoveOn token payment just there for legal/ethical cover.
taznar on September 13, 2007 at 11:55 AM
F U johnnie edwardcreap…
I just called my stockbroker to make sure I never own any stock in the treasoneous nyt…
areseaoh on September 13, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I agree with the others who mentioned the share holders. Don’t publicly traded corporations have a legal obligation to try to maximize profits?
Even worse than the discount though, is that the ad is is not just partisan, it’s libelous.
forest on September 13, 2007 at 12:04 PM
That is my thought, as well. The NYT considers itself an international paper, rather than an American paper. They have no sense of allegiance to this country.
I did a little research last night on where the “betray-us” reference originated. I could find nothing earlier than the dKos reference that riehlworldview found. There were a couple of posters at Common Dreams pushing it in July and August, another at The Nation, another at sarigraphics.com, and one at www.uruknet.de. No surprises there. I was somewhat surprised to find an unhelpful little ditty at DhimmiWatch, however Hugh’s poetry could be construed as positive, even in its obvious sarcasm.
As far as libel goes, I’m not a lawyer, but in my wishful thinking only, such an action would include all those involved in the creation of the NYT ad, as well as the paper itself.
Connie on September 13, 2007 at 12:08 PM
I guess the NYT thought that with their stock rising up and up and up they thought they could afford giving their ideological partners a break.
They then realized they had the chart upside down.
NYT: The Liberal Paper of Record, the Code Pink Lady.
BKennedy on September 13, 2007 at 12:09 PM
I Love the smell of lawsuit in the morning, smells like…victory.
Speakup on September 13, 2007 at 12:18 PM
When making a difficult decision, it’s a good rule of thumb to imagine your decision being on the front page of a major newspaper as a guage of whether or not you are behaving with an appropriate amount of integrity, humilty, etc… Good advice for the Times I’d say.
MT on September 13, 2007 at 12:23 PM
I’m not surprised but I am a little bit shocked.
Catie96706 on September 13, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Isn’t there a violation in the campaign law somewhere in all that? Give massive discounts to a favorable partisan organizations while charging more for those opposite of the aisle?
Anyone familiar with campaign laws governing advertising and affiliation?
Kokonut on September 13, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Could just be that the Slimes has been carrying the water for the Clinton’s for so long now that they think they are covered by the Clinton’s cloak of invulnerability.
doriangrey on September 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I for one hope for some comeuppance for “moveon.borg”
“Resistance is Futile you will be ass imoblilated”
William Amos on September 13, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Hmmm… this is a mess…
NYT is “giving” a contribution to MoveOn… but moveon is not officialy allied with the Dems… its a defacto relationship but not a legal one.
Sooo… even though NYT “gave” them a service… it isn’t a campaign contribution like it would be if the Dem PARTY ran the exact same add….
Legal loophole in the campaign finance laws…
Romeo13 on September 13, 2007 at 1:22 PM
Its the Media/socalist Government control complex
They all feed off each other and keep each other in power.
William Amos on September 13, 2007 at 1:27 PM
Absolutely disgusting. To my knowledge, FoxNews has never pulled off anything like this, yet they are constantly derided. This is a complete breakdown of journalistic ethics…what happened to all that talk of the Fairness Doctrine, Democrats?
WisCon on September 13, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Update: Pro-
warVICTORY group says it was charged “significantly more” for its adFixed that for you. I don’t think very many people are pro-war, certainly not the people that have to fight them. But once we’re in, we’re in it to win it.
ReubenJCogburn on September 13, 2007 at 1:32 PM
“Family Discount”
Heh.
infidel4life on September 13, 2007 at 1:36 PM
What really bothers me is the timing. This ad was produced by MoveOn and approved by the DNC sometime last week. The whole thing calling General Patraeus a liar was created before the General left the theater and traveled to the U.S.!
Really, what was the point of that testimony when the “rats” were already gearing up to call him a liar?
highhopes on September 13, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Again, I wish I had a subscription to cancel.
Must be slow on the terrorist front. NYT just didn’t have any secrets to gave away to put out fighting forces in harms way so they did the next best thing. They held up our number one man on the ground and called him a traitor. The enemy must be eating this up.
On-my-soap-box on September 13, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Arthur Sulzberger, owner/publisher of the NYTimes is a traitorous Piece of Sh*t!
He once told his father that if a US soldier in Vietnam came face to face with a NVA soldier, he would want the NVA to win.
That was back in the 60’s. He’s still a traitor now and his paper has violated the Espionage Act twice now, by exposing national-security secrets.
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.” [Ann Coulter,in a New York Observer interview, 26 August, 2002]
georgej on September 13, 2007 at 1:45 PM
When dealing in six figures, I’m sure nobody pays list price, and please remember there is no media bias.
locomotivebreath1901 on September 13, 2007 at 2:01 PM
I’m thinking of a line from 300.
Leonidas answering his captain’s protest about meeting Xerxes’ contingent alone: “If they attack me, then all of Greece will be at war. Pray they will be that stupid”.
Yes, the NYT is that stupid. A glance at their market performance should convince anyone.
deesine on September 13, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Saw this in the latest column by Ann Coulter, and I love it:
So, what is it, libs? Are you traitors, or just plain stupid?
jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 2:01 PM
“So, what is it, libs? Are you traitors, or just plain stupid?”
Traitors who are stupid.
georgej on September 13, 2007 at 2:13 PM
this reeks of sharia
crr6 on September 13, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Lesson learned: never underestimate the Times.
Not to worry, it cannot be done.
drunyan8315 on September 13, 2007 at 2:20 PM
How stupid and childish of the folks at MoveOn.org…my middle school kids could come up with something better than, “Betrayed Us”. Not very bright over there, are they?
Shelly on September 13, 2007 at 2:23 PM
If you look at their price sheet and go all the way over to the right column and look under propaganda rate and then look at the bottom for the anti-Bush discount and apply that to the P/R, it all makes sense.
The Grand Old Lady becomes a Plump Old Slut.
Hening on September 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Three Priests, a Franciscan, a Dominican and a Jesuit, having survived a shipwreck, are in a life boat.
The Dominican is at the bow looking out for ships, the Franciscan is sitting in the middle praying and the Jesuit is doing the only practical thing he’s rowing.
A shark comes along and rips an oar away from the Jesuit who stands and yells at the shark, bring that @#$%&*@ oar back here!
The shark turns right around and offers the oar politely to the Jesuit and he resumes rowing.
The Franciscan yells, praise the lord, its a miracle, the Dominican calmly replies, no..just professional courtesy.
Now you know how moveon got such a generous discount from the pink lady.
Speakup on September 13, 2007 at 2:48 PM
It’s being reported that Rudy wants the “MoveOn” rate in tomorrow’s NYT to discuss GWB’s speech. Be interesting to see if he gets it!
Speaking of tonights speech, am I the only one that finds it disgusting that the “rats” are actually going to rebut a the speech. Far past time to question the patriotism of these fifth columnists in our own Congress!
highhopes on September 13, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Actually, I thought that was the papers purpose
Kini on September 13, 2007 at 3:56 PM
I tried it once and my bird stopped talking. I was not sure if he was mad or dumbed down.
On-my-soap-box on September 13, 2007 at 4:04 PM
I used to use it to start my wood stove…
jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Says something about it’s readership, huh? Birdbrains.
Kini on September 13, 2007 at 4:11 PM
A complaint has been filed with the FEC over this:
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/09/complaint-filed.html
I hope something good comes from it. It’s long past time these people were countered.
jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Makes me want to take out a subscription to the NY Times, just for the pleasure of cancelling it.
If they bring back any kind of fairness doctrine, this kind of stuff ought to be included.
Silky on MSNBC? Good, let him waste some money so 16 people can see him bloviate. I hope it cost him more for this time than for the haircut he’ll have to get prior to it.
Mustafa Hemmroid on September 13, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Lol, it’s cute that some think that it matters that we know this. The world will never hear about it.
RightWinged on September 13, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Susan Estrich: The Democrats, especially the Democrats running for president, have a problem, and his name is Petraeus.
bnelson44 on September 13, 2007 at 7:10 PM
I’m looking for the number of viewers FOX had the other night when Britt Hume interviewed the General. It had to be a huge audience.
Dork B. on September 13, 2007 at 7:22 PM
The New York Times has sinking ad revenue and MoveOn has tons of money. Yet, The New York Times gives MoveOn a 65% discount. It’s no wonder why shares of The New York Times are tanking.
SoulGlo on September 13, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Not exactly true. Television ad rates are a “commodity” like the price of coffee or oil and they change constantly depending on a variety of factors. You might be getting a “sweet deal” for having your ad run for a month at 3:00 in the morning.
Print rates are more set in stone and more closely follow the “rate card”, but you will get a discount for multiple purchases and the like.
I suspect you are right, but I may be wrong :)
If this were an actual campaign ad at the end of the election period, then I believe it is true that they cannot by law charge different rates to different advertisers, but I don’t think this qualifies.
Buy Danish on September 13, 2007 at 7:31 PM
I guess this finally lays to rest the question of the NYT’s so-called “objectivity.”
Ryan Gandy on September 13, 2007 at 8:18 PM
Gateway Pundit… Senator John McCain also left a message for democratic presidential candidates, via Instapundit and The Corner:
“If you’re not tough enough to repudiate a scurrilous, outrageous attack such as that, then I don’t know how you’re tough enough to be President of the United States.”
Or, FOX News for that matter!
bnelson44 on September 13, 2007 at 8:35 PM
They reveal national secrets and subsidize the left but they should be thought of as Americans with a different viewpoint I suppose.
peacenprosperity on September 13, 2007 at 9:39 PM
I’m just waitin’ for him to start channelling the spirits of Iraq War victims.
Anybody up for a pool on when it finally happens?
soundingboard on September 13, 2007 at 10:42 PM
“So, what is it, libs? Are you traitors, or just plain stupid?”
Traitors who are stupid.
georgej on September 13, 2007 at 2:13 PM
soundingboard on September 13, 2007 at 10:48 PM
That’s the natural first instinct,(my case catbox liner), but upon further reflection, it just seemed creepily close to being Michael Vickish.
soundingboard on September 13, 2007 at 10:58 PM
This gets my vote for most efficient use of the material.
Of course, I’d scavenge the resource rather than adding to the subscriber tally.
Now, all you gotta do is write a letter to the NYT telling them what wonderful kindling their product is.
Give ‘em a small pang of carbon footprint guilt.
soundingboard on September 13, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I’m going to Paris on Tuesday to visit an editor for the New York Times/Herald Tribune. He listens to me when I tell him that the NYT should go center to win more readers. (Actually, I’m not sure it would work. For some reason, people prefer either crazy left or crazy right.)
The irony is that he is so reflexively left that he doesn’t even understand he is to the left: Shamnesty is just the natural and decent resolution of the illegal immigration issue. To prove this value for my last visit, he took me to the Mosque of Paris where the baths are more like a gay bath house in San Fransisco. He seemed to believe that this implied that Islam is not a danger. How can there be any danger from Osama Bin Laden if gay men f** in a mosque? I see several problems with this perspective.
thuja on September 14, 2007 at 12:26 AM
Why does your post make my head spin?
I can’t believe (actually I do) that people think that way.
right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 10:45 AM
I see a Motley Fool article finally made it into the Hotair Headlines. Tres cool!
trigon on September 14, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »