Who will they next kneel to Bin Laddin, Chavez, Castro ?
Woops, They do that already.

After the disgusting ad posted which “coincidentally” happened to be published on Sept 10, the same day Petraeus was testifying, the NYT tries to cover up the discount by saying that discounted ad rate was open to anyone giving them a 7 day window to publish any day the NYT saw fit.

If that was the case why did the very last line of the ad text say:

… [LINK]

The New York Times gave a 2/3 price discount to MoveOn to run the full page smear of General Petraeus…….

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.

I am sure most liberals would continue to say no.  But the fact is you can blithely dismiss this.  This is an industry that is profit driven, so the decision to give MoveOn.Org a sweetheart rate for the Petraeus Betray Us ad at the cost …

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.

I used to use it to start my wood stove…

jdawg on September 13, 2007 at 4:10 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.

wouldn’t line my birdcage with the NY Slime!

kiakjones on September 13, 2007 at 11:32 AM
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

That’s the natural first instinct,(my case catbox liner), but upon further reflection, it just seemed creepily close to being Michael Vickish.

Traitors who are stupid.

georgej on September 13, 2007 at 2:13 PM

Stupid Traitors!

But, I know Silky would never resort to such a tactic, right?

Wineaholic on September 13, 2007 at 11:17 AM

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?

Further proof that our MSM are nothing but shills for the Democrat and Socialist parties (one and the same?) inside this country: The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org’s ad questioning th…

“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!

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.

lorien1973 on September 13, 2007 at 11:42 AM

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.

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 suspect you are right, but I may be wrong :)

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

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.