NYT admits fellow traveler rate

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In the Public Editor column of today's New York Times, the Times' vice president admits that, without the knowledge or consent of MoveOn.org Political Action, the Times "made a mistake" in charging MoveOn its standby rate of $65,000 for the advertisement run on Monday September 10.

Liars

The Public Editor's column makes crystal clear that at no time did MoveOn have any reason to believe that it was receiving from the Times anything other than the normal and usual charge for the advertisement. And there is no evidence of any kind that the error in quoting of rates was in any way based on the content of the advertisement or the identity of its sponsor.

Liars

Nobody involved in the selling or buying of political ads is naive enough to have oopsed this. There is real money on commissions and bonuses in play and there is no way the $80-100k discount would have been left on the table. Somebody else had a client who would have paid more or split the page up and you have tons more revenue. Nope this was not a mistake, that is simply the easiest cover for the NY Times. Oh we're sorry, in the midst of a huge drought in print ad revenues, we threw away money to serve our liberal agenda.

True 'dat.

Roger L. Simon apologized to me in public for something said in private and that is to his credit although not necessary. I simply used Occam's Razor to see that greed had not been satisfied and that is the reddest of flags. You can never assume that good triumphs over greed until you have proof.

My original post about filing an FEC complaint regarding this contribution in kind

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/21852763

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NYT admits fellow traveler rate:

» Betraying ItsOwn from Morning Coffee
An Editorial in the NY Times today admitted that the bastion of liberal media violated its own written standards by running the Moveon.org General Betrayus Ad. While the editorial clearly admits that the ad violated written policy, they try and put th... [Read More]

Comments

[Cincinnati_Bob]

Good on ya mate. But you know, this kind of stuff is so far off the radar screen of the peaceniks, I mean Commies, it is hard to even describe.

A little humor might be in order -
http://www.lukefisher.com/no-radar.wav

[OldSoldier54]

Thank God,UJ! This is as close to a smoking gun as we are probably going to get for hard, cold evidence of the massive media bias toward all things Liberal. All because you had the industry experience that allowed you to call foul.

I wonder how it will be rationalized away by the Left ...

And good on Mr. Simon for manning up.

[space]

You are joking right? When are the Republicans going to give up their idiotic and embarassing Ahab-like stalking of the "liberal" NYT?

Let's leave aside the fact that this supposedly "liberal" newspaper is widely attacked by liberal bloggers on a daily basis -- a fact that one might think would undermine these cliams that it is a bastion of "all things Liberal".

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Times were as liberally biased as is claimed. Do you realize how pathetic Republicans look for whining about it non-stop? So what if the Times were liberal? It's a freaking private company. They are entitled to run their newspaper however they want. They can run the Communist Party platform on page A1 every day if they want to. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Its called capitalism.

It's not like the NYT even has a monopoly on the New York market. Hell, Rupert Murdoch owns TWO New York papers with right-wing editorial boards: The Post and the WSJ. Plus there is the neoconservative NY Sun. But you don't hear liberals whining like someone stole their lunch money every time the WSJ gives a de facto "in-kind contribution" of a favorable editorial.

BTW, do you even UNDERSTAND the concept of a standby rate?

[Ghost of Habu, The Pit Viper]

"So what if the Times were liberal? It's a freaking private company. They are entitled to run their newspaper however they want."

"Space", pull your head out. First off, since it's obvious you don't know the facts, the NYT is a PUBLIC corporation, with the Class B stock (the voting stock) held by the family. The Class A stock is all public, held by stockholders, and those are the people who deserve answers. NYT management gave away their (the public stockholders) money.

The public investors just saw the NYT management toss up to $100k over the side so they could to coddle up to moveon.org

Bottom line: That's EPS (earning per share) money that the NYT gave away for political reasons. The NYT management has already been under fire for sloppy management (stagnant and/or declining earnings), and now this?

"Standby rate" for a full page ad in the first section of the NYT? If that's the scam you're pushing, then there's absolute need for wholesale management changes at the NYT, because those clowns couldn't find their way out of a wet, torn, shredded, disintegrated paper sack. They must have hired the Enron rejects to run the NYT.

From wikipedia:

"Since 1967, it has been a publicly traded company, listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol NYT. The company has two types of stock, Class A and Class B. Class B shares are not publicly traded, and are the mechanism by which the descendants of Adolph Ochs, who purchased the New York Times newspaper in 1896, maintain control of the company. At the April 2005 Board meeting, Class B shareholders elected nine of the fourteen directors of the company."

One last little point:

"If you don't like it, don't buy it. Its called capitalism."

Not quite. If the management is corrupt or ineffective (as certainly appears to be the case at the NYT), Capitalism demands that the leadership (management) be replaced. Guess what - see how the Class B stock is handled - that option does not exist at the NYT. Media Socialism at it's worst. But not to worry - the marketplace will get them eventually - always does (just like Enron).

[Freedom Now]

As you noted in your post about the FEC complaint...

"But MoveOn.org did run it (the ad) and got an amazing substantial discount, one that any advertiser would love to receive. When called on it, they came out with an incredible lie. They claimed this discount was because the ad was bought on a ‘standby rate.’"

But then the Times claims that it was just an accident and MoveOn rushes to wire the additional funds without protesting for their ‘standby rate’.

Clearly there is quite a bit of covering up going on there.

Great job!!! Keeping the old media honest is what blogging is all about.

[David]

Roger didn't man up, he is a class act period. Yes he was wrong and said so quickly.

[Cecil Turner]

Let's see if I have this right:

Uncle Jimbo files an FEC complaint. NYTimes admitted the special rate and claims it was a mistake. Then MoveOn cut an additional check--essentially admitting responsibility--that can only be in response to liability over a violation.

UJ, I think it's about time for a full-on Snoopy Dance.