The New York Times must really take us for a bunch of dummies if they want us to believe that crap.

I agree. And let’s not forget it wasn’t just “a” mistake, it was two or more mistakes (personal attack, family rate…) and both mistakes just happened to let slide an ad that coincided with the NYT liberal slant.

And I also can’t believe it was a single person who made these “mistakes”.

So in summary, multiple people made the same (multiple) mistakes and nobody pointed out the error because… it was all a mistake???

The New York Times admits it gave MoveOn.org a sweet rate on that "Betray Us" ad…you know, the …
……

It was a “mistake.”

It was a botched joke.

Michael Moss’s look at a suspected Al-Qaeda recruiter who traveled back and forth between Waziristan and Germany is a great use of the Times’ column inches. It’s balanced, informative, and thorough. Moss raises questions of torture and interrogation…

MOVEON.ORG to pay NY TIMES full price…

When you need your daily fix of subversive communist propoganda and want to feed your head with rebel-without-a-clue sustenance, read the New York Times.

From Wikipedia, the definition of shill:
A shill is an associate of a person selling a good or service, who pretends no association and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage oth…

NewsBusters.org – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

After hearing the apologists defend the paper in countless ways, the New York Times puts them all in an awkward position and admits to giving a huge discount for Moveon.org.
The old gray lady has some expl…

…he did so with no evidence to justify his suspicion. All he had to go on was the Times’s shrill institutional anti-war leftism and his own overweening contempt for the media’s ethical standards.

Well, that, and a PDF of their 2007 rate ad sheet for advocacy ads, but yeah, you’re pretty much right.

RightWinged on September 23, 2007 at 2:54 PM

You are right on. That is a great Clinton tactic, just say it is old news, change the subject and move on completely ignoring the subject.

Is anyone checking into whether or not the nearly $80,000 political contribution has been properly recorded and reported?

* (When they quit talking about “Al Queda in Mesopotamia” I’ll quit calling them the New Amsterdam Times)

Bullsh*t!

Whoever told Hoyt it was a mistake was LYING. Or, perhaps, Hoyt is lying himself.

Pinch (Arthur Schulzberger, Jr., the publisher) told them to run it. He’s anti-war, anti-Bush, and far-left liberal/anti-American. This story is designed to cover HIS butt. If anybody believes that Pinch is NOT embedded in the Moveon/Soros/Democratic Party cabal OR that running this ad was not part of his personal liberal agenda, they need to have their brains checked because they’re a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Remember, Pinch is the guy who told his father during Vietnam that in a mano-a-mano duel between an American and a Vietcong/NVA, he’d root for the VC.

Sulzberger, for those who don’t know, is number 2 in Bernie Goldberg’s 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America (And Al Franken is #37).

Dirty rotten 8astards is what they are!

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of its parent company, declined to name the salesperson or to say whether disciplinary action would be taken.

Declined, that is BS. There is no such person and no such $77,508 mistake. Is there anyone reading this who can make a $77,508 mistake and not be shown the door in a New Yuk minute?

Charles Johnson links to New York Times ombudsman Clark Hoyt’s op-ed, which admits that the Times did indeed give a sweetheart rate to Move On.org:In a weasely attempt to throw some blame back on the people who were outraged by……

If you’re picking and choosing which Times stories you believe and don’t believe simply on the basis of which ones you want to be true…

I would agree with that principle, but I have trouble distinguishing the reason the Fred story was down-played and the Rumsfeld story up-played. They seemed equally tenuous and personally-motive-driven to me.

Miss Cleo says Hoyt best watch his back.

Freedom’s Watch’s FEC complaint is starting to look more compelling, in light of this development.

After hearing the apologists defend the paper in countless ways, the NY Times puts them all in an awkward position and admits the discount.
The old gray lady has some explaining to do.
Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist gr…