Accusations that the New York Times gave a price break to MoveOn.org for its ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus didn’t strike me as all that interesting. When it comes to newspaper advertising, everything is for sale, and the official rate card is often just a way to start negotiations.
But Times public editor Clark Hoyt says the Times made a mistake — that the price MoveOn paid ($65,000 as opposed to $142,000) was for a “standby” ad for which a specific day of publication could not be guaranteed. The MoveOn folks wanted their ad run on the Monday of the week that Petraeus was to testify on Capitol Hill, and they got their wish.
So how did it happen? Hoyt doesn’t quite say. But it sounds like an ad salesman wanted a commission.
Hoyt also doesn’t think the ad should have run at all. I disagree. As I’ve said before, the ad was an unfair attack on an honorable public official, although it’s hardly so offensive that it warranted breaking out the smelling salts.
The Times is a public trust, and its ad pages ought to be as open to political speech as possible, offensive or otherwise. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. gets it right when he tells Hoyt, “If we’re going to err, it’s better to err on the side of more political dialogue.”
Update: Looks like MoveOn just cost Rudy Giuliani $77,000. From a press release:
Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organization, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad. We will therefore wire the $77,083 difference to the Times tomorrow (Monday, September 24, 2007).
We call on Mayor Giuliani, who received exactly the same ad deal for the same price, to pay the corrected fee also.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Honorable? It would have been honorable for the general to tell Bush to go to hell when Bush opted to slot him into a position of defending Bush’s failed political situation.There are precedents.
Talk about lip service. More like a monologue than a “dialogue”. This whole thing will blow over, unless Pinch Sulzberger is suddenly seized by an attack of fairness. Compared to keeping the Duranty Pulitzer, this is nothing.
Dan not that it matters but the closest I see that you came to calling MoveOn’s ad an unfair attack, in that post anyway, was: “…though it may have been wrongheaded for MoveOn to suggest that Petraeus would shade the truth on Bush’s behalf, …”.I don’t think the ad even reached the level of “unfair” since it never got past the gaffe stage. The use of the facile “Betray Us” rhyme was apparently irresistable to whatever tone-deaf juveniles put the ad together. (I bet kids called him that on the schoolyard when he was seven.) The result was counterproductive of course letting supporters of the surge once again redirect the debate to question the patriotism of its opponents. It provided an excuse for the whole flag-waving, support-our-troops machinery to once again generate its finely-tuned high dudgeon. Which has been harder to crank up lately due to the absence of a credible front man for the policy–even fervent surge supporters don’t rally around George Bush anymore, so Petraeus is a godsend.Petraeus himself is the domestic equivalent of the surge–a fresh new troop of one, brought in to provide breathing room for the stagnant political status quo. The pity is, the text of the ad itself minus the last sentence was a legitimate critique. Do they really not count death by car bombs? It’s only counted as an assassination if you’re shot in the back of the head not the front? More civilian and US military deaths this summer than any other since the war began? The self-indulgent use of the playground rhyme allowed supporters of the surge to ignore these charges.To the charge that MoveOn got a deal on the ad, good for them. Presumably you specify a preferred date even when paying the can’t-guarantee-the-date rate, in case the date you want is open. Then you get a deal. Though for all the benefit MoveOn gained from it, whatever they paid, it was too much.
I agree. I don’t think political ads should be banned at all. I also think this was a misstep, albeit minor for MoveOn. Generals are no different than CEOs, are no different than political activists, are no different than news directors or newspaper editors, are no different than professors: They all tell it like they think it is.I’m not on the ground in Iraq. I don’t know if it is actually as bad as we all think it is. I believe it is. But I don’t actually know for sure if Gen. Petraus betrayed us.
John, The Senate confirmed Petreaus for this mission without dissent.It was Rumsfeld who called for the small foot print, do it light, approach, and Petreaus’s surge was understood by the Senate when they confirmed him. This is the repeated pattern for Dems. They vote for which ever way they see the wind blowing.As far as the NYT ad goes, I think it’s a pretty accurate reflection of the owners views. The reason to hammer-away with it, is because it represents what many Democrats now believe. They should be held accountable.The problem it leaves Dems is that if they win the Presidency, they’re going to have to order the disengagement from battle and retreat of an American Army to keep their pledge to their base.They’re going to have deal with the celebrations from AQ as they order it.They’re going to have to command an Army and Petreaus they’ve slandered; in the war that will not end simply because we leave the field of battle.That’s a heck of a spot for a President to be in.
Generals are no different than CEOs…They issues orders that send people to their deaths; that result in the deaths of a foe and at times the innocent caught inbetween.It’s a pretty unique job and the sense of duty and honor instilled in those who carry it out a key to keeping something inherently barbaric within some kind of bounds.Destroy that trust at great risk.
Bill,“The problem it leaves Dems is that if they win the Presidency, they’re going to have to order the disengagement from battle and retreat of an American Army to keep their pledge to their base.They’re going to have deal with the celebrations from AQ as they order it.”Exactly. Meanwhile we get procrastination as policy. We can’t sustain in Iraq beyond next Spring. So let’s add 30K troops then take credit for withdrawing 30K troops when their tours of duty are ending anyway next year, then dump the problem into the lap of Bush’s successor who will be a Democrat. Heckuva policy!Bad habits begin in childhood. George Bush’s mom never made him clean up after himself, apparently.
Exactly. Meanwhile we get procrastination as policy.No, the policy is the “surge” which is a lot more than more troops, and Gen P says it’s working as of the moment.Dems want Bush to call the retreat so they won’t have too (too placate that left, not because the surge didn’t work).Giuliani or McCain get’s elected it’s a different story. They’ll keep fighting a war that will last a long time. Hillary and Obama will fight too, but only after retreat, attack upon us, and then retailiation with brutal vengence: no Democracy or Nation Building talk from Dems when they lead America into the War-of-last-resort.Back to the NYT, the real story there is not that they gave Moveon.org a discount and violated their own rules on advertizing… it’s why they just didn’t put this instead on the Editorial Page as the paper’s stand… it’s really where it belonged.
My only complaint about the MoveOn ad is the illegal political contribution contained in giving them the discount rate.I have placed MANY political ads, and the policy is universal – cash on the barrelhead, up front, or no ad runs. This is due largely to various media being burned by candidates when they inexplicably fail to pay when they lose.MoveOn and the NYT fail to meet the smell test on this. The best way to rectify the situation is to provide a similar amount of discounted advertising to the RNC.
Peter Porcupine — MoveOn is not the DNC, so I don’t see why the RCN, of all parties, is the aggrieved one. In addition, there’s been no implication that MoveOn didn’t pay up, so your comment that in your history of placing ads you always paid cash upfront doesn’t really have anything to do with this. – geoff
I still don’t understand the Republican outrage over this. People that embrace Ann Coulter and her description of liberals as traitors are now lining up to bash MoveOn for doing the same thing. Both are childish, but the Republican self-righteousness is stunning. I don’t see why Hilary needs to repudiate MoveOn any more than Peter Porcupine needs to distance herself from the idiot who keeps using the phrase “gay liberal assclowns” on RedMassGroup.
I don’t see why Hilary needs to repudiate MoveOn…She ought to embrace it just as NYT should have carried it as editorial instead of ad.It would have been more honest for both of them. Hiding behind Moveon.org is deceptive.From Real Clear Politics, “No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,” noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. “The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.”That’s the kind of Party Dem’s have become.
Bill said: “Hiding behind Moveon.org is deceptive.”No doubt, Bill, you spoke out forcefully against the Republicans doing exactly the same thing with the Swift Boat liars.Didn’t you, Bill?
Steve, Hell of a point (if they were in fact “liars”.) Some of us have actually interacted with the Senator.
Bill sez:It’s a pretty unique job and the sense of duty and honor instilled in those who carry it out a key to keeping something inherently barbaric within some kind of bounds.Destroy that trust at great risk.Another bizarre Republican trait is the glorification of war by people who did everything in their power to avoid enlisting. If our presence in Iraq is so noble, why aren’t you there?You might want to watch the Ken Burns WWII documentary, just as a reality check. For example, when and why did the US get involved? Hint: it wasn’t to stop Hitler.
Steve, I predicted it! I belonged to the Grinnell College Alum listserv. Many of the alums had been active with the Dean Campaign in Iowa and they were really a glum bunch when they lost to Kerry.Then they started posting that Kerry wouldn’t be all that bad a candidate because of his war record.Geez, I had remembered sitting in the living room as an anti-war activist teen, with my WWII Vet Dad as tears streamed down his face watching Kerry’s testimony to Congress on TV. I told the alums we would be stuck with that video over and over again during the election…. didn’t they remember it and the impact it had?If they did remember it, they thought it would be received favorably today! All I could think of was my Dad holding back tears, and thought these activists hadn’t learned a thing in 30 years.Kerry would be indicted by his own words……the other thing I remembered was the anonmosity towards Kerry within VVAW. They were using each other back then and Kerry was detested as Kennedy wanna-be… there is a reason why Barry Romo remained silent during the swift boating… that none of those people from Winter Soldier stood besides Kerry in the election. Kerry didn’t want them, and they didn’t want him.That was more telling to me than anything about the anti-war movement. Kerry wouldn’t get help from either side from those years….at least those who knew him well.
9:16,Republicans are no more monolithic than Democrats, much as you may dislike that. I saw the same show you did. Politically, FDR didn’t dare to admit that we had let our defenses deteriorate and put too much of the Navy in one place,(Pearl), ripe for destruction. War is not glorious. Like open-heart surgery, it sucks but it often beats the alternative. If we can avoid spending blood and treasure, we should. Just be damn sure you are willing to accept what happens. I suggest you talk to someone serving. By far the best perspective.
Bill,So your dad’s tears justify the Swifties LYING about their serving with Kerry? Interesting…Let’s try another one:Robert Willington, new Executive Director of the Mass. GOP and campaign manager of the VoteOnMarriage anti-gay marriage signature drive, once described gays as the “forces of evil.” Now, the boards and executive leadership of Vote On Marriage and MassResistanceare registered Republicans.Peter Porcupine is a Mass. GOP State Committee member, yet claims to not be anti-gay. Is she just hiding behind VoteOnMarriage and MassResistance?
No, my Dad’s tears I thought pretty indicative of an average joe’s reaction to Kerry’s words then. I thought it would be the same now. I had a pretty vivid recollection of those times. My Dean supporter Alums thought Kerry would be a good second choice because of Vietnam.I thought he was the absolute worse choice because all the stuff he said then was going to get played back, and I didn’t think it was going to replay very well.Considering the VVAW guys I bumped into once in a while didn’t speak very highly of him, I didn’t think Kerry had many friends at all from those times.
I thought he was the absolute worse choice because all the stuff he said then was going to get played back, and I didn’t think it was going to replay very well.So, if I read this correctly, you’re saying the Swift Boat smearing of Kerry was OK because you happen to dislike him? Doesn’t that kill your entire argument about MoveOn?
Bill – my own dad was a Liberator of the camps. He could have been the guy holding the baby from last night – I know his experiences scarred him for life. Before he died, he had me donate all his photos, books, medals, etc., to our local synagogue because he was so disturbed by deniers. He wanted testimony from at least one non-Jewish, even Aryan, soldier that these events were true.Too many people scorn the experiences of our fathers. I had one ‘Progressive’ tell me that they were dying off, and weren’t worth ‘courting’ for votes. It is a somewhat pervasive attitude from the far-left towards the military, and entirely misses the honor with which they served and the respect they deserve.Off topic – it fascinates me that my varied detractors all choose to remain ‘anonymous’. If they are trying to convince me they are legion, they have only succeeded in convining me they are – one or two.
Peter Porcupine said… Too many people scorn the experiences of our fathers. I had one ‘Progressive’ tell me that they were dying off, and weren’t worth ‘courting’ for votes. It is a somewhat pervasive attitude from the far-left towards the military, and entirely misses the honor with which they served and the respect they deserve.Thanks for the reminder of another great real world example: Kerry Healey. You worked on her campaign. Did you repudiate her for this comment:”To extend tax breaks to seniors in order to keep them overhoused and isolated in the suburbs is not necessarily the right answer.” Off topic – it fascinates me that my varied detractors all choose to remain ‘anonymous’. If they are trying to convince me they are legion, they have only succeeded in convining me they are – one or two.The RSC example at 11:30 was meant as an example, not a detraction. Me, I think you and the folks over at RedMassGroup and HubPolitics are the Mass. GOP’s own worst enemies, so are to be encouraged. I just can’t seem to get past the blogger log-in these days.However, you are well known for threatening to sue your detractors, especially ones who reveal your “secret identity.” Aaron Malloy springs to mind. I can see why real detractors would remain anonymous.
My old man was a 20-year Army coot er, hero, which included a stint in the Korean conflict. I remember sitting by his deathbed seeing the tears welling up in his eyes. Don’t ever forget what that rat bastard Nixon did in Cambodia, he said. The secret bombing–a disgrace! He sobbed bitterly then pulled himself together and with his dying breath said, and never give in to those who seek to persuade by transparent appeals to emotion!I’ll never forget the words of my brave father whose every thought, because he served in the military in a foreign conflict, was sacrosanct.
Regarding your update, Dan, MoveOn only costs Giuliani if his campaign decides to not be hypocritical.It looks like they’re not taking that road. After all, if you’re a Republican, no one calls you on your hypocrisy.Lane Hudson at FireDogLake gives it a try. Unfortunately, “When Mr. Giuliani’s campaign was called on to pay the difference, therefore avoiding a violation of law, his campaign declined to do so.”
Bill, while all those vets were crying over Kerry, did they ever stop to consider that they instead elected a worm who ducked the war they were risking their lives in — and then lied about it? Say what you want: No one debates that Kerry was there — and Bush wasn’t (nor, for that matter, was Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, or any of the other GOP wusses).If your dad and his vet friends did consider this, and voted for Bush anyway, then they’re hypocrites. And if they didn’t, well, they got what they deserved when Bush cut funding for veterans care and raised the cost of Medicaid.
So, if I read this correctly, you’re saying the Swift Boat smearing of Kerry was OK because you happen to dislike him? Doesn’t that kill your entire argument about MoveOn?The SwiftBoaters replayed video of Kerry from Winter Soldier and the Congressional Hearings. I could see that coming and knew the wounds those videos would reopen.If Moveon.org had used Petreaus own words against him it would be comparable maybe but there really two very different kinds of political ads.Kerry’s Winter Soldier stuff with Jane Fonda played alone without any comment would have been devastating enough.My Dad was long passed by the time of the election by the way. I just recall him because it’s a memory of the emotional turmoil from those years: the long haired radical anti-war teen, and the patient Father holding back tears.My Dean, and then reluctant Kerry supporters, friends thought recalling Kerry’s military past was going to be a big plus for Democrats. My recollections of Kerry were just a lot of painful emotions.Besides that, I saw VVAW guys at Vet events, (Romo used to cook sausages at StandDown for Homeless Vets in Humbolt Park) who had been with Kerry, and they didn’t have a kind word for him….for that matter Kerry didn’t seem very inclined to call Barry Romo or VVAW for their support either.Here’s an excerpt from Stacewicz’s 1997 Winter Soldiers – An Oral History Of The Vietnam Veterans Against The War Having read the book and having bumped into some of the players here in Chicago, I new if Kerry’s friends from that time felt like this about him, imagine what a foe would do… frankly this sounded worse than what the Swift Boat guys put out.[Stacewicz:] What did you think of Kerry and his contributions to the organization? SR: Kerry was to me a mainstream politician basically. He was kind of using us. I said, “Go for it you’re welcome to take our venue and go for it.” Linda Alband: lt was mutual use. There was a lot of validity that John brought to the organization: being a Yale graduate, his looks, and he had access to a lot of people we wouldn’t necessarily get in [with]. lt was good for both him and the organization. I always heard all the guys that I worked with talking about him. It wasn’t anything bitter. They didn’t think he used anybody any more than he got used, so it was like this mutual proposition. No one resented that. Barry Romo: We didn’t dislike him. He’s an equivocator. He’s a liberal. He’s a politician. He was liberal, he was rich, he was from Massachusetts, he talked like a Kennedy, he had people cleaning his house that could have been our parents. So, I’m not particularly bent out of shape by the Moveon.org ad either. I think it’s an accurate reflection of what many Democrats and the NYT believe. It’s just that like Kerry, the NYT and Dems sore of equivocate around about who really stands for what.
Bill Baar said… If Moveon.org had used Petreaus own words against him it would be comparable maybe but there really two very different kinds of political ads.Bzzzt. That’s the entire point. MoveOn used a childish slur. The Swift Boaties flat out lied. Look it up. Or ask Dan. :)BTW your support material isn’t exactly, well, supportive.
Barry Romo was right there at Kerry’s side.The Switft Boat ads I saw were replays of Kerry’s testimony.My problem with the Moveon.org ad is this though. If the NYT and Senators believe the ads to be true they are obligated to act.They are obligated to tell the American people we are being lied to by the Military.If they can’t come out and say that truth as they see it, than it just seems like –as VVAW’s Barry Romo said of Kerry– they’re equivocating.That’s a profoundly immoral stance for an institution like the NYT and key Democratic Senators to take in wartime.If the NYT believes this ad, enough to offer a deep discount and violate their own standards on attacks, then it’s serious enough issue that it should have been on their Editorial page instead.
Don’t be disingenuous, Bill. You know those aren’t the ads we’re talking about. Kerry’s testimony was on the record, and people are obviously free to make of it what they will.
Give me some examples Dan… really… The one that comes clearest to mind is Kerry at the hearings saying he saw soldiers commit atrocities…That ad played over-and-over. It was tough stuff but Kerry was so out-front back in those years there is no way that wasn’t going to come back and haunt him.But like I said, my biggest problem with the Moveon.org ad is the NYT and Dems think he lied they need to get out front and say so. I’m sick-and-tired of Democrats playing themselves as the party of the bamboozled saying they were lied too… …If this General is lying now is the time to say so…very loudly.
Uncle Doctor Zoidberg used to sell ad space for the NYT. On his deathbed the tears welled up in his eyes as he explained to me the old-fashioned way of doing business. For you my dear client, you pay the can’t-guarantee-which-day rate. Then tell me what day you like, and we see what we can do. Unless somebody walks in ready to pay sticker price for every full-page ad slot for your preferred day, which never happens, then you should be all set. Nice to do business with you.Then with his dying breath dear Zoidy left me with this thought: “Only schmucks pay retail!”
Bill, that ad isn’t “true” or “not true”. It presents a thesis, that facts are being manipulated (“Gen. Petraeus is at war with the facts.”) and provides evidence to support it. (“Every independent report on the ground…shows that the surge strategy has failed.”) A few facts are asserted as examples. That the Pentagon doesn’t include death by car bombs in its tally of violence. Or that it’s only assassination if you’re shot in the back of the head but not the front. That there have been more civilian and US military deaths this summer than any other since the war began. The pertinent issue isn’t that some juvenile invoked the obvious rhyme, but whether the Pentagon has adopted a “bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence”, for political reasons.If you concur, then you should indeed speak out, regardless of which party you happen to belong to. If you dispute the thesis, then you’d do better to provide some evidence to that effect (Like, no, car bombs do count in the tally, and here is my evidence. Or, though they don’t count car bombs, there’s a reason for it, which is this.) rather than going off on tangents.
Bill –This (factcheck.org) is a well-sourced presentation of the lies told by the Swift Boat vets.
Bill doesn’t really marshall facts. He assinates character and circulates lies. In that regard, he’s the perfect representative for George Bush and Bush’s horrific prosecution of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If he any spine whatsoever, he would have been in Iraq all these years. It’s not too late Bill.
anon.. Send me an email with your identity. Bill_Baar@hotmail.com..
This story just won’t die. Now it’s repeating itself in miniature in Minnesota:http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/09/27/frankens-opponent-undercharged-for-attack-ad/Franken’s Opponent Undercharged for Attack AdPosted by Trish | Sep. 27, 2007, 11:02 amAl Franken is getting a refund. After incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) was underchanged for an ad characterized by Franken as, “criticizing me for criticizing a Senate resolution that criticized MoveOn.org for taking out an ad in the New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus,” the paper decided to even the billing score….Coleman’s ad accused Franken, who has entertained troops in Iraq four times as part of the U.S.O. tour, of undermining the troops by supporting an end to the Iraq occupation.It’s worth clicking through to read Franken’s comments.
I’ve begun to wonder who poses the bigger threat to the U.S. Army: the Iraqi insurgents or the GOP. Both seem intent on seeing them slaughtered.