NYT/Open Thread

From the comments:

Kinda swamped the next two days, so hopefully Tim can pick up the slack till Wednesday.

Translation:

Hopefully this whole NY Times mess is forgotten by then…

You saw through my scheme! Months ago, when I was scheduling a bunch of work-related things for this for this time period, I was merely planning in advance to dodge the tough questions! Last week, when I posted nothing but open threads with a few quick posts and noted I have a lot on my plate at the moment, it was just part of the dodge!

You are on to me! Seriously, folks- in the half decade this blog has been in operation, I don’t think I have ever avoided a fight or an opportunity to tell people to go fuck themselves (although as of late, I am a little hesistant telling that to our friends on the right, as I am afraid they will misinterpret me and end up in an airport bathroom with a congressional page). I see via the referral logs that the dead-enders at Red State and a certain stay-at-home dad are sending catcalls ourway, so I will make this brief. According to the NY Times, two things:

1.) The Public Editor seems to think the NY Times violated their internal policy about what is and is not appropriate to publish. I could care less about that, as it truly is an internal issue. I would recomend a policy that prints whatever (including pictures of aborted fetuses, Swift Boat ads, etc.) and letting the readers sort it out, but I don’t set the NY Times policy.

2.) The grievous “mistake” the Times is admitting to is that they were insufficiently careful in stating that “yes,” the ad would run on the date in question because there was space available, but that they were not guaranteeing it- at least that is how I am interpreting the following:

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.”

Pretty thin gruel.

Now, if the NY Times did secretly guarantee it, while charging them the standby rate, then that is a different matter altogether, and to hell with them- they are lying and can rot. Otherwise, it seems to me that with what has been disclosed so far there is not much there, there.

At any rate, there it is. I have addressed this pressing issue, and am glad to contribute to furthering the growth of MoveOn (sending in more money was a master stroke by Pariser- it will guarantee a few days more coverage and they can now pressure Giuliani to pay more, thus keeping the story alive for a few more days. Not a bad 70k spent considering they have taken in over a half a million since the ad originally appeared) and dodging the actual substance of the sketchy Petraeus testimony.

For future reference, I will be busy for the next few days. Thus, I will be unable to blog about the Jena 6, Ahjminialphabets trip to Columbia and the UN, whether OJ is guilty, our new plan to win hearts and minds with snipers, and whatever else is going on that requires my not-so-urgent attention. Again, hopefully Tim will pick up the slack.

PS- We are up to 3798 dead, who knows how many injured, and just threw another 50 billion into operations. Have we won yet?






64 replies
  1. 1
    Kermit says:

    Yes, we won. Happened on Friday. The Times however neglected to mention it.

  2. 2
    canuckistani says:

    Yeah, you won. Everyone in the trailer park is laughing at the New York Times. That’s victory in Iraq, isn’t it?

  3. 3
    Dennis-SGMM says:

    Isn’t this the same NY Times that provided uncritical cheerleading in the runup to the Iraq war? And, isn’t this the same NY Times that sat on the NSA warrantless wiretapping story until after the 2004 election?

    After all the favors that this paper has done for the administration you’d think that the right wing would cut it some slack.

  4. 4
    Xenos says:

    Cut them slack? This sort of non-scandal is the unpredictable slap in the face that is used to keep a battered wife in line.

  5. 5
    Kermit says:

    Victory and progress are by definition that which is not reported by the Times. Unless of course it is reported in the Times then of it just goes to show how astounding the victory must be by nature of its actually having been reported on in the Times.

    I wrote an angry letter to the Times on Saturday and, no surprise, they failed to report that either. But somehow they had space for an entire section of book reviews. Movie listings as well.

  6. 6
    chopper says:

    someone at the post didn’t mention that a going rate was for ‘standby’ even though the purchaser had been through the whole rigamarole before?

    my god, this conspiracy goes all the way up! this is gonna crack open so wide it’ll change american society forever!

  7. 7
    ATS says:

    Well I hope Tim does get into the Columbia speech issue. My ears are still smoking about Silver implying that the state would withold $ to Columbia.

    My God, have we lost Habeus Corpus AND free speech in the space of two years!! he is being allowed to give a speech and be questioned, not being lionized. Shouldn’t a world leader be permitted to speak at a World Leaders conference at a goddamn private school?

    BTW, if that Iranian leader is as dumb and odious a nutbag as is being said, why wouldn’t these neocon tub thumpers WANT him to to make an ass of himself answering questions from our best and brightest? What the hell are these people afraid of?

    Columbia PhD ’76

  8. 8
    Earl says:

    Moveon got $50 out of me, just for being one of the few to publicly question why Bush’s hand was sticking out of Petraus’ ass.

    earl

  9. 9
    srv says:

    What the hell are these people afraid of?

    Everything except a certain political party.

  10. 10
    OxyCon says:

    MoveOn has gotten $1,656,363.86 in donations off of that ad so far as a direct result of the right wing backlash against it.
    Check the figures out yourself:

    https://pol.moveon.org/donate/mcconnell.html?id=11275-3771983-xOdtdD&t=2

    Thanks all of you WATB mouthbreathers out there!

  11. 11
    whippoorwill says:

    our new plan to win hearts and minds with snipers,

    I read the article in the Post when I first got up this morning. I’d about convinced myself I was still asleep and dreaming. I guess not.

    We’re channeling crazy ass Stonewall Jackson now as in “we’re gonna kill them, we’re gonna kill them all”. Message to Iraqi civilians don’t pick up anything strange off the ground cuz we’ll blow your brains out.

    On the other hand, hearts and minds do make the best kill shoots — according to the “House of Wisdom”.

  12. 12
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, “We made a mistake.”

    If you learned how to read between the lines, John, you would understand that what this sentence really says is, “Today’s forecast for Iraq: 100 percent chance of ponies.”

  13. 13
    Zifnab says:

    BTW, if that Iranian leader is as dumb and odious a nutbag as is being said, why wouldn’t these neocon tub thumpers WANT him to to make an ass of himself answering questions from our best and brightest? What the hell are these people afraid of?

    Americans have proven themselves to be slow, ignorant, easily fooled, and entirely predictable over the last six years. I think the Republicans are afraid that if Ahmidenijad gets too close to a mic, he could win the American Presidency in ’08. They’re just trying to protect us from falling under the hypnotic voice of the 12th Imam / Unholy Calaphat / Anti-christ that is the President of Iran. The end of days is upon us!

  14. 14
    Mike says:

    You don’t get it, do you John? Ahmadinejad is the evil genius behind Steely McBeam!

  15. 15
    Punchy says:

    I’m easily the biggest Cubs fan on this site, but even I cannot believe this.

    $30 MILL for 10 more years? Just insanity.

  16. 16
    ThymeZone says:

    I read the article in the Post when I first got up this morning. I’d about convinced myself I was still asleep and dreaming. I guess not.

    Did the same thing and had the same reaction. I still can hardly believe that these fuckheads are doing this, and crowing about it too.

    I sincerely hope that the story is poorly reported and that there is more to it than we know, which seems to be that we drop “bait” on the ground and shoot whoever picks it up.

    Absolute fucking insanity … I am keeping my eyes out for more info on this, I really want to believe that the story is bunk.

  17. 17

    Ahmadinejad is, in another blog’s phrase, an Iranian Huey Long. That we keep mistaking him for the Antichrist and Hitler v2.0 shows how much of the country has the instincts of a hysterical old lady.

    For a party that fancies themselves as the adults, something about two-week old newspaper ads and Iranian figureheads scare the shit out of ’em…

    DU

  18. 18
    Face says:

    I hear that many Republican men have stopped using Viagra. Seems they found it cheaper to just tape a picture of Betrayus on their headboard.

  19. 19
    Timb says:

    I saw Ahmajenadad last night on 60 Minutes and I did NOT come away believing the Holocaust didn’t happen or Israel should be destroyed. Can we get a war-monger in here to explain why he’s not the master Svengali they say he is?

    I know they are worried about their new war, but Dan Rather interviewed Saddam and we were still able to kill several hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in retaliation for their involvement in 9/11….(what do mean there was no Iraqi involvement?!? Then why have we killed so many Iraqis? What do you mean “to save them”?) Wow, it seems the Michael Savage wing of the Republican Party STILL doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

  20. 20
    whippoorwill says:

    Absolute fucking insanity … I am keeping my eyes out for more info on this, I really want to believe that the story is bunk.

    Same here, but the Post is usually pretty accurate on these type stories. I wouldn’t be surprised if the brass muzzles the sources and makes a statement that the targets had to be carrying weapons beforehand.

  21. 21
    HyperIon says:

    I saw the guy a couple of years ago, speaking at the UN then IIRC. C-SPAN covered it. I listened for a while and agreed with some of his sentiments, need for co-operation and a plan to bring peace and stability to the mid-east. Then he started talking about God, only God could do this, we need to let God guide us, only by giving ourselves over to God’s will, etc. Sounded like a crazy fundie so I channel surfed away. I imagine his speech at Columbia will be a similar mix.

  22. 22

    BTW, if that Iranian leader is as dumb and odious a nutbag as is being said, why wouldn’t these neocon tub thumpers WANT him to to make an ass of himself answering questions from our best and brightest?

    Surely you aren’t imply the neocon tub thumpers are our best and brightest?

    Why do you hate America so?

  23. 23
    ran says:

    I dunno, Shrub’s a war criminal and a mass murderer, and he’s on my teevee giving speeches all the time.

    Why shouldn’t we hear this Iranian out?

  24. 24
    stickler says:

    The nice Confederates over at Redstate don’t want Americans to see Ahmedinijad because then Americans might get the impression that the guy is human (Persian-speaking, but still).

    For the current war-hysteria propaganda to work, it’s critical that Iran’s leader be perceived as a dangerous cartoon Hitler. Nuance and detail are just distractions.

    Remember, we’re not talking about the “reality-based” world when we’re talking about Bizarro World. Reality tends to be very inconvenient, from their point of view.

  25. 25
    LITBMueller says:

    Well, now that the AlwaysRight have been proven right about this whole NYT/MoveOn thing, I guess I have no choice but to support the war. Thanks, RedState!!!!!

    In fact, I’m sending emails to my newly-favorite rightwing websites with suggestions on how we can all march to victory:
    1) Government takeover of the press
    2) Using a cold 6 pack of beer as “sniper bait”
    3) Hanging liberal traitors as a pay-per-view event in which the proceeds will go to the war effort

    And many other helpful suggestions. Many thanks to the Rightwing Reactionaries for sticking to their Outrage Guns and proving that the NYT and MoveOn have been involved in a horrible conspiracy to ruin the great US of A. If it wasn’t for them…where would be? In an even bigger mess than we are now…

  26. 26
    Face says:

    Ordinarily, I’d file this in the CRAZY category, but considering the author, and more importantly, the near unanimity amongst the commenters, well, it seems there may be more to it.

    Really, the idea that these many safety checks could all fail at the same time on the same day is beyond belief.

  27. 27
    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop says:

    Now, if the NY Times did secretly guarantee it, while charging them the standby rate, then that is a different matter altogether, and to hell with them- they are lying and can rot.

    Wow, how shocking. Oh, no, wait — it’s the opposite of shocking.

    Of course, it was a nod-and-wink deal with MoveOn — it’s naive to believe that the NYT ad sales department made a pricing mistake on a full-page rush ad because they don’t know their own policies and rates — it’s their only job. And do you think someone in sales is getting fired over making a $100K “mistake?” Not a chance. Sulzberger will just say, good try, too bad you got busted.

    Also, I suspect that you’ll go on linking the Times and the WaPo as if they weren’t just NewsMax For Lefties. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was…

  28. 28
    Zifnab says:

    Ordinarily, I’d file this in the CRAZY category, but considering the author, and more importantly, the near unanimity amongst the commenters, well, it seems there may be more to it.

    Really, which is more crazy? The US can accidentally misplace nuclear weapons onto an airplane that does supply runs for Iraq. Or Dick Cheney is conspiring to accidentally nuke Iran? Occum’s Razor, folks.

  29. 29
    Andrew says:

    What I don’t get is how functionally retarded mouth breathers like EEEL still don’t understand that “The Left”(tm)(r)(c) really, really HATES the New York Times.

    Now, I’m sure the Times’ Style pages are full of vegan homosexual liberals trying to indoctrinate our children into becoming angry gun toting lesbians or Broadway choreographers, but the Times’ news reporting has been neocon cheerleading for endless war.

  30. 30
    demimondian says:

    Speaking of “Betray US,” it’s good to see that the Pretzelnit’s men and women retain their absolutely brilliant focus on getting Democrats elected in 2008.

  31. 31

    Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop Says:

    Now, if the NY Times did secretly guarantee it, while charging them the standby rate, then that is a different matter altogether, and to hell with them- they are lying and can rot.

    Wow, how shocking. Oh, no, wait—it’s the opposite of shocking.

    Of course, it was a nod-and-wink deal with MoveOn—it’s naive to believe that the NYT ad sales department made a pricing mistake on a full-page rush ad because they don’t know their own policies and rates—it’s their only job. And do you think someone in sales is getting fired over making a $100K “mistake?” Not a chance. Sulzberger will just say, good try, too bad you got busted.

    Also, I suspect that you’ll go on linking the Times and the WaPo as if they weren’t just NewsMax For Lefties. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was…

    September 24th, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    You want someone to get fired for a $100K mistake? That’s for pikers. How about a mistake that costs $450,000,000,000+ and results in 3,798+ dead American soldiers?

    If only “Bush’s War” supporters were as concerned about our troops and nation as they were about what some organization paid for a 2.5 week old newspaper ad…

  32. 32
    Cyrus says:

    Now, if the NY Times did secretly guarantee it, while charging them the standby rate, then that is a different matter altogether, and to hell with them- they are lying and can rot. Otherwise, it seems to me that with what has been disclosed so far there is not much there, there.

    Call me an evil, eeevil leftist, but I wouldn’t even go that far. Am I the only person who doesn’t have a problem with a business bending their internal policies slightly for the benefit of a customer? Yeah, maybe a massive newspaper like the New York Times doesn’t do it as often as the family-owned twice-a-week community paper where I write, but if the girl in advertising I flirt with gave a one-time discount to a car dealership who advertises with us every other issue, our boss would probably actively encourage it.

    Sure, MoveOn.org’s ad was political so I guess the NYT should have been more of a stickler for their own policies, but that’s just the appearance of the appearance of impropriety. Really, this is dumb.

    Also, the sun rose in the east this morning.

  33. 33
    mrmobi says:

    …Of course, it was a nod-and-wink deal with MoveOn—it’s naive to believe that the NYT ad sales department made a pricing mistake on a full-page rush ad because they don’t know their own policies and rates—it’s their only job.

    Tell you what, Lambchop. I’ll concede that was the case if you’ll concede that there is no way on God’s green earth that an Air Force missle loading team didn’t know they were mounting nuclear weapons on a bomber for a flight over the US.
    This has never happened in the past. Lambchop, is your buddy Darth Cheney sending a Sicilian message to Mr. A of Iran? And can I assume you’re completely ok with flying nukes over our own territory? I’m sure you are, I mean, your solution to most problems is “two-in-the-brainpan,” isn’t it?

    Might we invite our citizens to weigh in on whether they like the idea of military jets with nukes mounted on the wings doing fly-overs?

    This issue might be marginally more important than whether the NYT, which largely cheerled the Iraq war, charged enough for an advertisement, for fuck’s sake!

  34. 34
    Tim F. says:

    Also, I suspect that you’ll go on linking the Times and the WaPo as if they weren’t just NewsMax For Lefties.

    Well there you go then. Since reliable news doesn’t exist, let’s just declare all facts relative! I think that we’re winning in Iraq, ergo we are. Now shut up and bow.

  35. 35
    The Stranger says:

    Pretty thin gruel.

    Just stick your fingers in your ears, hold your breath, and stomp your feet, why don’t you?

    That would be a much better tack thann your silly, childish arguments.

  36. 36
    ATS says:

    No Us President, least of all the current nitwit would sit through the kind of “introduction” provided by Columbia President Bollinger.

    Yet at that very moment Rep Ted Poe (R-Tex) was denouncing Columbia as the “University of Hate” and suggesting it be “moved to Teheran.” Huh, don’t these elected morons even read what is being said?

    If Columbia proved anything it is that a head of state SHOULD be allowed to speak. Man, I can’t believe I have to even say that–and at a great University.

    During the Great Strike of 1968 Columbia students would have defended Satan’s right to speak. if only to provide him enough rope to hang himself. Today the simplest rights have to won all over again.

  37. 37
    Cyrus says:

    Also, I suspect that you’ll go on linking the Times and the WaPo as if they weren’t just NewsMax For Lefties. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was…

    By the way, this is pretty solid evidence that you are either a spoof or completely nuts, and I’m leaning towards the latter. A comparison between the NYT and Fox, say, would be within the bounds of reason, even though I think it too would be incorrect. But today there is simply no equivalent to WND on the American left, unless LaRouche is publishing something these days. Compare them. At the moment, these are the top headlines of WND: “‘Not a single Christian’ in birthplace of Christ: Muslim intimidation could make ‘land of Jesus’ barren in 15 years,” “To the least of these my brothers,” and “Islam Rising: The Never Ending Jihad Against Christianity.” (Also, notice that they can’t even decide on a preferred style of capitalization in headlines. Sensationalist, sectarian, one-sided and incompetent!) By contrast, these are the top headlines at the NYT right now: “Amid Protests, President of Iran Speaks at Columbia,” “Questions and Protests Confront Iran’s President,” and “G.M. Workers Begin Walkout Over Contract Impasse.” Oh yeah. Two sides to the same coin, all right.

  38. 38
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Of course, it was a nod-and-wink deal with MoveOn

    Of course it was. Because, well, you seem to think it was, therefore it absolutely, positively was. Facts are whatever you think they are, apparently.

    If the wingnuts have defined “victory” downward so much that they are now declaring victory in this utter non-scandal, why can’t they just declare victory in Iraq so we can get the hell out of there?

  39. 39
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    No need to work up a head of frantic rhetorical steam against EEEL’s leftist-conspiracy theory — there’s direct disproof of it in Clark Hoyt’s original column. Quoting CNN yesterday: “Hoyt noted, however, that the executive who approved the ad did not view it as a personal attack. Rudy Giuliani, a leading GOP presidential candidate and former New York mayor, received the same rate for a response ad he placed days later, Hoyt wrote.”

    As for whether the MoveOn ad WAS a “personal attack”: “The executive who approved the ad, Hoyt wrote, said the ad was ‘rough’ but that ‘he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.’

    “The full-page ad, which ran the same day as Gen. David Petraeus’ testimony to Congress about the state of affairs in Iraq, did not address Petraeus’ personal life. The ad — titled ‘General Petraeus or General Betray Us?’ — called the general ‘a military man constantly at war with the facts’ and cited quotes of Petraeus that differed from independent reports and news stories.”

    In other words, they called him dishonest. Is this a “personal attack”? If it is, God help the future of the political part of the First Amendment. The only thing that can be said against that ad was its overwrought (and maybe not all that much overwrought) title.

    Also note: “In a 72-25 vote, the Senate approved a resolution last week condemning the ad… Republicans filibustered a Democratic proposal that condemned past GOP attacks on former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia and on Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, said Sen. Hillary Clinton, a front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

    Gosh, what would we do without that ol’ filibuster? It does so much for small-“d” democratic governance, and I have no doubt it will do a lot more. (Particularly since the Congressional Democrats still seem to be afraid of their own shadows, possibly because most elected officials really don’t have all that strong a belief in much of anything except for their own income.)

  40. 40
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Actually, I see that my comment above deals only with Point #1. If the Fighting Keyboarders are now falling back still further onto Point #2, it’s irrelevant — but then, it’s also unnecessary since (as Cole says) that charge is remarkably thin gruel. Of course, they’ve been living on thin gruel for some years now, which presumably explains their dramatic political weight loss.

  41. 41
    timb says:

    Yeah, what would Sean Hannity and Dan Collins, err, EEEL do if the Senate had followed their advice, c. 2005 and eliminated the filibuster? Dear Lord, they would have gotten their judicial nominees through (and further destroyed American jurisprudence) and we’d have a withdraw date in Iraq? Is that an even trade. I haven’t gone all the way thru the PW archives to see what the erudite Mr. Collins position was, but I know Hannity wouldn’t stop insulting Lindsay Graham and John McCain. Bet he’s glad he has that now.

    Hannity, Michael Savage = Protein Wisdom, Red State?

  42. 42
    The Stranger says:

    So, just what is this pressing business John Cole must attend to?

    He didn’t fly over to Eye-rack to find Beauchamp, did he?

  43. 43
    timb says:

    Everyone knows Scott Beauchamp was made up by that liberal rag TNR. Even Cole knows that. I mean, the TNR’s pro-war stance since 2003 and continuing was just a ruse to set up a little known blogger to ruin America’s war effort from the back page!!!!! Oh, those clever libs!

  44. 44
    The Other Steve says:

    Columbia University – 1
    Right-wing nutjobs – 0

    That turned out to be quite a coup for Columbia.

  45. 45
    The Other Steve says:

    So, just what is this pressing business John Cole must attend to?

    He didn’t fly over to Eye-rack to find Beauchamp, did he?

    No, he’s currently part of an experimental left-wing indoctrination camp we’re holding here at the Minneapolis airport restroom.

    We’ll have him back to you shortly.

  46. 46
    timb says:

    I still can’t believe the world didn’t end when he was done speaking! From the reaction of the kooks, I would have thought he was Voldemort or soemthing

  47. 47
    TenguPhule says:

    Shorter The Stranger: I’m an asshole, this I know. Because the Bible tells so!

  48. 48
    TenguPhule says:

    Of course, it was a nod-and-wink deal with MoveOn—it’s naive to believe that the NYT ad sales department made a pricing mistake on a full-page rush ad because they don’t know their own policies and rates—it’s their only job.

    This from the same person who says with a straight face that just because Bush doesn’t state Democrats are traitors who hate the military directly, he has never implied such using the old wink and nod.

    Watching EEEL’s flipflopping is like observing a perpetual motion machine in action.

  49. 49

    Hasn’t there been a lot of news stories about how newspapers have been losing revenue to online stuff? Could it be possible that NYT was glad to have someone wanting to run an ad?

  50. 50
    John Rohan says:

    So in other words, you made a lot of noise screaming how there was nothing to the NYT ad story, and now when you have been proven completely wrong, you are backpedaling and furiously trying to change the subject by bringing up the number of Iraq war dead. Pathetic. Ok, so exactly how many lives (American or Iraqi) did you think that ad saved?

    This is incredible. A man should at least have the integrity to admit when he was wrong, not try to skirt the issue by grasping every straw in sight.

  51. 51
    chopper says:

    in other words, the right made all this shit about this ad about how moveon got a sweetheart deal and the times gave all this favorable shit to their ‘buddies’, and after all the facts come out that they got the same standby deal everyone else gets, all you’re left with is the one fact that the dude failed to tell the moveon dude that the quote included the standby fee, even though they’re repeat customers and know what that shit is all about.

    that’s all. that’s all that happened.

    yet the right takes the one stupid thing that hasn’t been proven completely wrong, of the whirling maelstrom of falsehoods that they peddled trying to create a non-story, and you run with it like it shows people like cole to be ‘proven completely wrong’.

    you’re pathetic.

  52. 52
    John Rohan says:

    chopper Says:

    in other words, the right made all this shit about this ad about how moveon got a sweetheart deal and the times gave all this favorable shit to their ‘buddies’, and after all the facts come out that they got the same standby deal everyone else gets, all you’re left with is the one fact that the dude failed to tell the moveon dude that the quote included the standby fee

    *Sigh* Have you tried reading the news? I strongly suggest that you try to read anything outside of John Cole or your favorite lefty blogs. For example, you might find that the NYT itself disagrees with you:

    Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?

    The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake [yeah – an innocent mistake lol].

    The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.”

    Simply put. You guys were wrong, the righty blogs were right. The NYT admits it, even Moveon.org essentially admitted it, since they have now agreed to pay the full price. Honestly, how much more proof would you need than that?

    Not that they had any choice really; everyone knew the ad wouldn’t have worked as a “standby”, since, to be effective, it had to run on one day only. It was getting kind of hard to cover that up.

    LOL, I hate to use the word “Schadenfreude”, but…

  53. 53
    Timb says:

    Actually, John, and maybe you missed this while you were looking all the snappy German words, but Patraeus testified for two days, so the ad running on Monday or Tuesday should have been fine. one could argue (and I just might) that the second day in front of the Senate was far more important than b.s. appearance in front of the House. But, then again, this is an important issue and I thank you for keeping it alive. I expect Sadr and friends will disarm their militias once the New York Times is defeated by you and the Holy Warriors. Keep up the good work.

  54. 54
    Mr. Man says:

    Just as an aside, was it hard to pretend to be a righty, or did you sort of play with it and make it fun? And if it was fun, is it less so now that you have to be yourself all the time? Because I know that if I enjoyed acting, having to stop would just make me sad. You’re not sad, are you? I really, really hope not.

  55. 55
    ATS says:

    The Other Steve Says:
    “Columbia University – 1
    Right-wing nutjobs – 0
    That turned out to be quite a coup for Columbia.”

    It was a good thing overall.

    My only quarrel is with Bollinger’s harangue. It was rude, and demeaning to an audience that should be capable of making up its own mind.

    All Bollinger was doing was kissing up to the phantom lobby that Walt & Miersheimer critics say doesn’t exit—yet scares both parties to death.

    Were any US President treated this way at a foreign university, the jingoist tub-thumpers would advocate an invasion. But we needn’t fear that, given that Bush would never dare appear even AT A US UNIVERSITY other than a military academy.

  56. 56
    ATS says:

    A silly issue.

  57. 57
    The Stranger says:

    Honestly, how much more proof would you need than that?

    You’re dealing with John Cole here. If he doesn’t want to accept the proof, he won’t, no matter how definitive it is. Seriously.

  58. 58
    The Stranger says:

    This is incredible. A man should at least have the integrity to admit when he was wrong, not try to skirt the issue by grasping every straw in sight.

    Two words; John Cole.

  59. 59
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Quite apart from Timb’s point, let’s keep in mind that the Times gave exactly the same discount to Giuliani’s anti-MoveOn ad. Let’s also keep in mind that the supposedly ferociously anti-war Times continues to defend Judith Miller.

    George Will, by the way, has a column in the Post tonight suggesting that the Times just got bitten by the same McCain-Feingold free speech limitations that it favors for others. I suspect he’s right; the best cours for campaign reform is instead to provide a properly designed public campaign-fund system of the sort that Arizona already has (although George ferociously opposes that too, for absolutely no convincing reason…)

  60. 60
    John Rohan says:

    ATS Says:

    Were any US President treated this way at a foreign university, the jingoist tub-thumpers would advocate an invasion. But we needn’t fear that, given that Bush would never dare appear even AT A US UNIVERSITY other than a military academy.

    The stuff does happen both ways. There was a rough parallel when Hugo Chavez spoke at the UN, and opened his speech by comparing Bush to the devil and so forth. It was extremely rude, and not terribly productive. But while a few Dems (like Charlie Rangel) openly condemned it, most on the left loved it, and on the Daily Kos, many were pissed that Rangel spoke out against it at all.

    Oh, and afterwards, none of the “jingoistic tub-thumpers” called for war on Venezuela.

  61. 61
    TenguPhule says:

    Shorter The Stranger: I like to Lie. I also Like Pie!

  62. 62
    TenguPhule says:

    The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

    Shorter John Rohan: I will accept the word of a sack of shit who uses a nameless source and cite it as evidence while decrying everything else.

    Keep on defending Officer Betray-us, after all its not your people he’s going to kill in Iraq for his own personal benefit.

  63. 63
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Right, Mr. Rohan. Most Democrats — and most opponents of the Iraq War at this point, including John Cole — just LOVE Communist gasbags like Hugo Chavez. We like Bin Laden, too!

  64. 64
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    This is, I think, a good time to point out that it’s now been solidly confirmed that, weeks before MoveOn’s ad, Rush Limbaugh used the same “Betray-Us” pun to describe Sen. Hagel, conservative (if anti-war) Republican and former military man. (See Josh Marshall’s video clip.) Sauce for the goose, people…

Comments are closed.