Captain's Quarters -

Ah, does this mean that the FEC, bane of free speech, will penalize the NYTimes? The obvious has been substantiated. The NYTimes is a self admitted "financial" supporter of a political action committee.

IF a NASCAR driver can be flayed in the press and courts for putting on a pro-bush bumper sticker, shouldn't THe NYTimes be hoisted with their favorite petard?

As BobDole says, "Where's the justice?"

[snip]...Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print."

Ummm... pardon me for my ignorance, but, exactly when did an Army General become a public official?

Ah, but, jkstewart2, they admitted they made a mistake and implied they are sorry... that means they should be allowed to go on with "business as usual".

I feel like I'm spamming but another thought occurred to me... the NYT reminds me of that line in Forrest Gump, who, when asked if he's stupid or something, he replies, "Stupid is as stupid does."

Just what is the issue here? The NYT is an independent business, is it not? They can print whatever ads they choose for free if they want to.

Grow up.

If we interpret the "Us" in "General Betray Us" as a self reference to MoveOn, then I would have to agree with the intent of the ad. Anyone who believes in protecting the US from threats at home and abroad; anyone who believes in the basic goodess of the US; anyone who is willing to place themselves in harm's way to secure the blessing of liberty for others: yes indeed, these people betray the hopes and asperations of MoveOn.

Thank you General Petraus for your lifelong service in defense of this noble experiment called America.

"Just what is the issue here? The NYT is an independent business, is it not? They can print whatever ads they choose for free if they want to."

Well, it is a publicly traded corporation so its shareholders might view running free ads as a poor business practice.

Moreover, providing a discounted rate to a liberal advocacy group while not providing that same rate to a similar conservative group properly leads to charges of bias or a partisan agenda. I think it's perfectly fine for the NYT to be a mouthpiece for Moveon.org. It simply needs to announce that at the top of the front page.

The NYT can run as an independent business Norseman; no problem with that. As any Independent business (I have owned my own for 26 years now), the public will decide as to the success or failure of that said business.

The "free press" design came with boundaries, governed by simple principle's most certainly including "for the good of country"... The people will decide the fate of the NYT; this is just another story which exposes the NYT for operating under extremely biased principles. The NYT has a problem with a consistently shrinking subscription rate, coupled with a consistently shrinking "public confidence" rate. Quite frankly, the NYT is dying on the grapevine for having made really poor decisions, while abusing the freedoms given to the press by our founders.

Not real complicated...

Good reporting CE...

He claims a salesperson made an error but lower in the piece he also publishes this:

Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said.

I say his whole piece is nothing more than a poor attempt to justify and excuse the inexcusable.

The NYT is free to print anything they wish. They are not required to acknowledge their biases or partisan agendas in any way. They are not required to provide excuses or explanations to anyone.

If you don't like it, don't contribute any money to their efforts.

Like it or not, they are an important voice of those who govern us. Their choice of what to print and their editorial stands determine the content of TV and radio network news.

That's the way it is. You whiners have nothing to say about it. If you don't like it, start your own newspapers.

Bennett says: "Moreover, providing a discounted rate to a liberal advocacy group while not providing that same rate to a similar conservative group properly leads to charges of bias or a partisan agenda."

Well, to be fair, they did give Rudy the same rate to print his anti-Hillary ad.

At any rate, of course the NYT has a liberal bias -- the same way FOX has a conservative bias. Don't read it if you don't like it.

I work in print advertising and the thing that really nails the NY Times on this fraud is the "standby" claim. Moveon.org would never have agreed to run the ad on standby since standby ads have a 1-2 week window in which the advertisement can run. Obviously MoveOn wanted the ad to run the day that Gen. Petraus was scheduled to testify. For that type of guaranteed (the typical analogy would be a retailer who has to have their ad run on Sunday because their sale starts on Sunday) rate the best MoveOn should have been able to hope for is rate card -15% (the standard agency discount). I'm sure they could have found a sympathetic agency to place the ad at no margin.

This is really a dog-bites-man story. Of course the Times favors the MoveOn crowd. I'm sure they didn't offer the Swift Boaters the stand-by rate for their ads attacking Kerry.

What's interesting is broadcasters are required to have a specific rate for political/message advertising. If they charge less than that for an ad to one side or the other they are supposed to report that discount as an "in-kind" contribution to the organization/campaign. Should the New York Times be required to report the discount that they gave MoveOn on their financial statements as a political contribution? It would be a little harder for the Times to claim that they are non-partisan if their critics could point to their 2007 financial reports and show a $65,000 contribution to MoveOn.org!

Norseman, so why did the NY Times admit to a "mistake"

They should be free to run what they want -- outside of libel; I am free to continue not to give them a dime or read it for free online. Simply as a newspaper, the NY Times has gone downhill from the 1980s

"The NYT is free to print anything they wish. They are not required to acknowledge their biases or partisan agendas in any way. They are not required to provide excuses or explanations to anyone."

This is quite simply wrong. To advance the theory that a newspaper has the right to cloak its agenda or deceive its readership as to its purposes or intentions is to turn the entire concept of news reporting into nothing more than a propaganda exercise. And, again, that's fine as long as everyone knows it.

There's a reason why newspapers clearly mark the editorial and opinion pages as such. Because they recognize the need to distingish between factual reporting and point of view statements. The same should be true for its advertising practices.

"Like it or not, they are an important voice of those who govern us. Their choice of what to print and their editorial stands determine the content of TV and radio network news."

The NY Times doesn't govern us. But in any event, after making the point that the newspaper doesn't have to reveal its biases to anyone because it is "independent", you state that its choice of what to print determines the content of other media outlets.

You then are essentially saying that the Times is free to advance a biased point of view under the cloak of seemingly nonpartisan reporting and ostensibly neutral business practices and that this deception can usefully and properly be exploited to drive the reporting and business practices throughout the media. And all the while no one is allowed to know that what is reported by the Times as true or objective and then repeated by others is, in fact, false or skewed or partisan.

That's not the way it is. Or, at least, that's not the way it should be. The consumer has the right to accurate information about the products and services he purchases. "Truth in advertising" is not just a meaningless catchphrase.

It is the NYT that is squirming under the examination. If the NYT simply said--to stockholders, readers, and advertisers--"sure we gave MoveOn a discout. Get over it!" that would be fine and well within their right as a corporation.

But the NYT really wanted to hide the fact of the discount from everyone--stockholders, readers, and advertisers--to maintain a facade of fairness. Which is in even more tatters than before, if that is at all possible.

I do think that the stockholders will have the last say in this matter. As a public corporation, the board has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure that the corporation operates in a financially responsible manner. This kind of donation materially impacts the corporate value in several ways and should be addressed immediately. An activist investor probably could generate sufficient legal activity to force the board to make wholesale changes in the executive management team to rectify the falling stock price and the ongoing profitless operations.

norsemen:

"Just what is the issue here? The NYT is an independent business, is it not? They can print whatever ads they choose for free if they want to."

More norseman:

"That's the way it is. You whiners have nothing to say about it. If you don't like it, start your own newspapers.

Guess you failed to read the part about not following their own internal guidelines when they ran the ad.

You also fail to understand it's NOT an independent business. IT's a publically traded company with 10's of thousands of investors in the company.

And the "whiners" as you call they were spot on in their early and often assessment of this case.

There seems to be insinuation that NYTimes gave the price break and ran the ad because of an allegence to Moveon.org and their message.

But, there's simply no evidence to show this aside from the fact that they got the price break. Looking at the explaination by the public editor, it does seem like it was really just a mistake:

Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, told me that his group called The Times on the Friday before Petraeus’s appearance on Capitol Hill and asked for a rush ad in Monday’s paper. He said The Times called back and “told us there was room Monday, and it would cost $65,000.” Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said. Advertisers who get standby rates aren’t guaranteed what day their ad will appear, only that it will be in the paper within seven days.

Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, “We made a mistake.” She said the 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. She added, “That was contrary to our policies.”

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.

Jespersen, director of advertising acceptability, reviewed the ad and approved it. He said the question mark after the headline figured in his decision.

The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially. Jespersen has rejected an ad from the National Right to Life Committee, not, he said, because of its message but because it pictured aborted fetuses. He also rejected an ad from MoveOn.org that contained a doctored photograph of Cheney. The photo was replaced, and the ad ran.

What is clear is that at the very least a mistake in pricing was made. There is no evidence right now that NYTimes gave the break because of a shared political ideology. It seems that everyone assumes that this is the case. But it's really not clear if that happened or not.

At any rate, of course the NYT has a liberal bias -- the same way FOX has a conservative bias. Don't read it if you don't like it.

While I would agree with "Teresa" on the point of "don't read it if you don't like it", the NY Times has been a leading advocate of cracking down on free speech in the name of "campaign finance reform" and the "Fairness Doctrine". The former is now the law of the land, and the latter awaits either the Obama or Clinton II administrations to take another bite out of the Constitution.

I feel that it would be appropriate for the NY Times - one of the most enthusiastic opponents of free speech - to feel the bite of McCain-Feingold. Plus there is always the hope that a liberal judge will decide that saving the Times is worth the price of saving the Constitution. Hopefully someone will sue them - the case is pretty open-and-shut, despite Tom Shipley's gassing to the contrary - and help to get the Constitution restored.

"Well, to be fair, they did give Rudy the same rate to print his anti-Hillary ad."

This is misleading. The Times only gave him that rate after the discounted rate to Moveon.org became known and he demanded a similar cut. He would not have received it otherwise.

"At any rate, of course the NYT has a liberal bias -- the same way FOX has a conservative bias. Don't read it if you don't like it."

The NY Times has a liberal bias? I've never seen that admission from the organization itself. The issue is a little more specific than that anyway. Did Moveon.org receive favorable treatment, did the Times initially attempt to portray that as standard business practice and has it now confessed that the discounted rate was an error? Yes, yes and yes. And the question is why did that happen?

If Fox has done the same thing, then by all means add it to the discussion. Otherwise it seems you wish to change the subject.

This story is in fact the gift that keeps on giving for Reps everywhere. This would all have been old news if the NY Times had not given Moveon a discount. Not only were they given a discount but they lied and continue to lie about the details of the discount.

The hypocrisy is thick and obvious and Ed you have done a great job of exposing it. Of course this is more than just rank hypocrisy and bias the ACU currently is floating a Law suit that calls this discount an in kind contribution. Since Freedom Watch would never get such a deal this certainly appears to violate campaign Finance Laws.

Michael,

I know you want this to be as bad as possible for the NYTimes, but looking at what we know, Moveon.org called and asked for a rush ad to go into the paper for that Monday. A ad rep called back and quoted them the standard rate which means the ad will appear at some point within a 7-day period.

Obviously, since it the ad was specifically asked to be printed on Monday, and it was, this was a mistake -- at the very least.

But there's no evidence as of now that the Times knowingly gave Moveon.org a discount. This could very well be a mistake made by one person.

Leaving a comment on a blog, chastising people for daring to criticize a newspaper and not finding their own outlet for free expression... Delicious!

"But there's no evidence as of now that the Times knowingly gave Moveon.org a discount. This could very well be a mistake made by one person."

Well clearly it was done "knowingly". The person quoting the rate didn't mumble or misspeak. Within a corporation, there is no defense of "this person acted alone." The corporation bears the responsibility for the actions of its employees.

Someday Tom you should explain why you are so quick to look for the innocent explanation when it seems to favor your own point of view and so quick to condemn other's mistakes as evil or dastardly when it doesn't.

Not that you have to explain, it would just be interesting to read it.

If I was a shareholder in the Times, I'd question the explanation that a $76,000 "mistake" by a single employee could escape the notice of management for two or three weeks. Obviously, they have not taken their Sarbanes-Oxley requirements seriously -- or no one at the Times considered it a "mistake" until it generated so much criticism.

For the information of those declaming about the fact that the NYT is a public company and that the shareholders should demand an explanation, be advised that the company is "public" in name only. There are two classes of stock, only one of which has voting rights. The voting stock is controlled by the Shulzberger (sp?) family.

In effect, the NYT is a closely held corporation and Pinch Shulzberger is answerable only to himself and some of his relatives.

When it first came out that the Times charged a deeply discounted rate for MoveOn, I smelled a rat. Having spent a great deal of my career in the newspaper business in General (National) advertising sales, I found it most unusual that they would allow the standby rate for a general rate advocacy advertiser. If there is any place major metro papers attempt to maintain the integrity of their rate cards, it is in this category. Standby ads are usually the domain of mail-order and low end retailers. Games are played on assuring run dates, it’s not unusual. What is unusual, again, is that they broke the rate for MoveOn. And according to Public Editor Hoyt’s article, this was their regular rate.

Newspapers can charge whatever rate they want, but they must maintain equity for like categories of advertisers. They cannot charge Sears double what they charge Macy’s if both run similar amounts of advertising. Ditto for liberal vs. conservative advocacy advertising.

One other item that doesn’t ring true is the denial that Publisher Sulzberger was unaware of the ad. At every paper I have worked for, if there could be repercussions, the Editor and Publisher were always given advance copies of the ad. It is unthinkable to blindside your senior management.

The Times got caught with their pants down. Hoyt’s article is simply damage control to resurrect the established General rate for all advocacy advertisers. Without doing so, the Times would be giving away a ton of money.

"In effect, the NYT is a closely held corporation and Pinch Shulzberger is answerable only to himself and some of his relatives."

Well, and to the SEC as well, which of course requires all sorts of disclosures (notwithstanding your position that the Times has no obligation to reveal anything to anyone).

Perhaps more important, Pinch is answerable to his creditors. Currently the Times has almost $1 billion in long term debt and revolving credit lines outstanding.

He may have control but he doesn't have all the power (non-voting shareholders can sue as well as voting shareholders and creditors do not view unprofitable business practices with favor).

"If I was a shareholder in the Times, I'd question the explanation that a $76,000 "mistake" by a single employee could escape the notice of management for two or three weeks."

Right on.

Furthermore, quite obviously the NYT has a limited number of adspace per day available for sale, and it beggars belief that the same person offers quotes for adspace, drafts invoices, fixes the pages for publication, and tallies the income per day per ad page. Each step would have been performed by different people and at each step a supervisor would have a chance to notice that about half a page worth of revenue had been gifted. I worked for a company that prints church bulletins and that's the separate effort that went into putting all those ads on the rear cover.

Also, notice nobody's been fired for it.

Ed:

I think that we can say that this gray lady is a tramp!

It’s true that the Times, like many media empires (Washington Post, the old Wall Street Journal) has two classes of stock. The founders and their descendents controlling the class that gives them a majority vote. But it should be kept in mind that the founding family also experiences the decline in their wealth that the ordinary shareholders of the NY Times have experienced. Since the descendants of the founders are seldom as skilled as their forebears, these companies eventually get sold or decline.

In the case of “Pinch” it does not help if the person at the wheel is an ideological nut intent on squandering his heritage. Of course, he, personally, will not have to sell pencils on the street corner or cage his meals in a local bar. He can always sell his estate. But the other members of the Sulzberger clan may not appreciate that personal net worth has dropped by 60% over the last 5 years thanks to the management of the boy wonder.

Speaking of the Sulzbergers, where they hell are they?

One would think that they would see how far down the toilet Punch has taken their family legacy since he assumed command of the paper (both financially and intellectually), they'd ship his sorry ass off to summer camp or something. Maybe he's the sanest one of the bunch these days?

BTW, has anyone ever seen Tom Shipley and Punch in the same room at the same time?

Posted by Norseman | September 23, 2007 11:29 AM

"The NYT is free to print anything they wish. They are not required to acknowledge their biases or partisan agendas in any way. They are not required to provide excuses or explanations to anyone.

If you don't like it, don't contribute any money to their efforts.

Like it or not, they are an important voice of those who govern us. Their choice of what to print and their editorial stands determine the content of TV and radio network news.

That's the way it is. You whiners have nothing to say about it. If you don't like it, start your own newspapers."

Excellent argument, Norseman!
/sarcasm off/

Next time anyone from the Left side of the political spectrum rails against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, Bill Bennett, et al, I'll simply copy/paste your argument above, and substitute "radio programs" for the word "newspapers" when replying. Thanks for the quote! ;-}

KendraWilder, Norselady

Since we're talking about fringe groups going too far -

When will the Republicans denounce the extremist group Values Voters? At the Presidential debate the group held for GOP candidates this week, event organizers invited the Church of God Choir, from Springfield, Ohio, to sing "God Bless America" -- except the lyrics were rewritten. Instead of a song about "the land that I love," and "home sweet home," this version condemns the country, saying we've all turned against God, and that He won't bless us.

Twisting and distorting the words of "God Bless America" is disgusting and an insult to all Americans. The GOP should be ashamed for supporting a fringe group like Values Voters.

hey other ed..

Have a credible link for this data..or is it more rumor has it

Other Ed said:

"When will the Republicans denounce the extremist group Values Voters? "

LOL! Maybe because most Republicans have NEVER heard of them? They're far more of a fringe group than MoveOn is, and my guess is they don't get anywhere near as much money as MoveOn. They certainly do not have a Sugar Daddy like Uncle George Soros bankrolling them...

By the way, that "debate" you mention was a non-event, as the major candidates didn't even show up. Please have Paul Begala fax you some new material.

"Since we're talking about fringe groups going too far."

Apparently you want to talk about that, most of the rest of us have been talking about the NY Times and its discounted advertising rate to a lefty advocacy group.

But maybe I'm missing the point. Did some news organization sponsor the choir, give the church a special rate for broadcast purposes, one not made readily available to other organizations?

Otherwise I don't see the connection.

norseman:

"For the information of those declaming about the fact that the NYT is a public company and that the shareholders should demand an explanation, be advised that the company is "public" in name only. There are two classes of stock, only one of which has voting rights. The voting stock is controlled by the Shulzberger (sp?) family."

What a bunch of nit-picking hooey that is.

No matter what class of stock one owns cash still leaves your wallet to own it and the NYT is still responsible to those that have spent that cash.

Norseman:

Why should the NYT be exempt from campaign finance reform laws?

In response to this comment:
Posted by Steph | September 23, 2007 10:44 AM

[snip]...Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print."

Ummm... pardon me for my ignorance, but, exactly when did an Army General become a public official?

Thanks for asking, Steph: A long, long time ago. They are called "officers" because that is short for "public officers" as opposed to "private soldiers". Only the "public officers" were directly responsible to the country that employed them (whether they were citizens or foreign mercenaries); the "privates" might have been conscripted or freely enlisted nationals or foreigners, but remained private citizens, not public officials.

Bostonian:

You ask "Why should the NYT be exempt from campaign finance reform laws?"

As a print medium, the NYT is exempt from the BCFRA restrictions on content and timing.

MoveOn.org is not a political party, so even if one might argue that the NYT made a corporate "in-kind" contribution to MoveOn, it probably broke no law in doing so.

"When will the Republicans denounce the extremist group Values Voters? "

When they buy a full-page ad in the NYT that I have to see if I turn on the TV for the news.

I mean, we know MoveOn.org has the same opinion 365 days a year...

"Posted by Jann | September 23, 2007 9:03 PM

In response to this comment:
Posted by Steph | September 23, 2007 10:44 AM

[snip]...Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print."

Ummm... pardon me for my ignorance, but, exactly when did an Army General become a public official?

Thanks for asking, Steph: A long, long time ago. They are called "officers" because that is short for "public officers" as opposed to "private soldiers". Only the "public officers" were directly responsible to the country that employed them (whether they were citizens or foreign mercenaries); the "privates" might have been conscripted or freely enlisted nationals or foreigners, but remained private citizens, not public officials.

"

Nice try. The term "Commissioned Officers" is not synonomous with "public officials". The terms officer and official are not legally or linguisitically equivalent in the context they are being used.

This was no mistake. That ad was placed by Fenton Communications, which does all of moveon.org's ads. Don't make this sound like some intern at moveon just called up the Times and got some flunky at the ad desk. Fenton knew the right people to call to make sure that ad got the best placement possible, on the right day. You have to know people to do that - that is part of what companies and organizations pay ad agencies to do for them. And whoever placed the ad knew exactly what rate moveon was getting, and so did Fenton. Everything else is just CYA.

If you do a lot of ads, if they think you are going to do a lot of ads, if they are looking for new advertisers, if it is your first big ad, you will get a good rate. I have gotten ads placed for free. I have had two for the price of one. I have had half price rates....

I've done media buying and I promise you, it is not that hard to get ads priced at cut rate. In fact, if you place through a media agency, they get a discount of x% for placing a lot of ads, then, they will charge you 15 - 20% FOR placing the ads for you. That is how they get paid. (You can imagine when doing a big media buy - $3m+ - how much 15 - 20% ends up being. The client doesn't care because they are paying the same cost or less than they would on their own and that is what the agency is doing.)

If you don't like the ad, okay, but...getting upset over the media rate is like getting upset that the person next to you is flying for less than you are because they got a seven-day rate, or used their frequent flier miles or whatever.

Of course, they have to say it was a mistake so they don't have to give everyone that rate.