The Confederate Yankee, Monday:
s there any way for us to know just how much The New York Times charged MoveOn.org for their full page “General Betray Us” advertisement today? Did they pay full price, or did they get a special, reduced rate?***
If Tapper’s numbers are correct, MoveOn.org paid just 38.89% of a full-cost, nationwide ad, or a 61.11% discount off of a full-rate ad. While I’m fairly certain that nobody pays “sticker” prices, 61% off seems a rather sweet deal.
I don’t know, intrepid sleuth. Why not call the NY Times advertising department and ask?
ABC’s Jake Tapper, who first reported what Moveon.org paid for their ad, is on the story again today and reveals that a conservative organization who ran a full page ad the next day paid “significantly more.”
It appears that the NY Times may take a much bigger hit to their the credibilty and the bottom line than they ever anticipated as a result.
I doubt stockholders will be pleased.
Of course, those investigative juices never got a flowing and you never inquired to know why the conservative group paid more (like, for example, their ad was in color, set to run on a specific day, etc.- not to mention these are Bush’s rich buddies and not too worked up about cash). Finally, after a week of pretending the NY Times did something wrong, you concede defeat (in your own special way, of course):
In other words, all the attention came as a result of the New York Times not putting their standby pricing on their rate cards, and the majority of the angry pixels expended in this incident were more than likely “much ado about nothing.”
Ahh, yes. It is the NY Times fault. You see, they failed to make all their ad prices clear to people who:
A.) never intend to spend a penny advertising with them
B.) hate them
C.) refuse to believe them when they call and ask their ad rates
D.) don’t even read their paper unless they think they can find some bias to wail about.
That, my friends, is how the right-wing blogosphere “investigates.” Create a charge, accuse someone of something, trumpet it wildly, get a bunch of mouthbreathers in a furor, and then, when it is obvious to everyone you have no proof, blame the person you accused.
Fun stuff. Never retreat, never surrender.
*** Update ***
I should probably add that my absolute favorite thing about this affair so far is that even when conceding defeat, the CY links to Dan Riehl, who has this to say:
But I would add an additional point, or two. Being the topic of the news agenda is a far different thing than setting said agenda. And if it weren’t for New Media, particularly blogs in this case, this particular agenda item would likely have never even been set. Duh!
Just so we are clear, if I call Dan Riehl a stupid motherfucker or accuse him of some trumped up bullshit, I am not insulting him or falsely accusing him, I am AGENDA SETTING!. Welcome to Wingnuttia.
*** Update ***
Even funnier, Owens is now deleting comments of those who point out his folly, and leaving the fawning ones praising him for his “good work.” A profile in courage and honesty.