Discounting the Gray Lady
For a long time, many have known that they should discount a lot of the agenda journalism in The New York Times. Now, it appears, the Gray Lady is discounting herself.
Confederate Yankee reports that it appears that the newspaper allowed Moveon.org to run a full page ad calling General Petraeus a traitor at 61% off! (HT: Newsbusters).
It's quite a contrast to the way that CNBC and MSNBC have treated Freedom Watch, a group supporting the war -- both networks refused to run their ads.
Is there anyone, anywhere who believes the Times would offer the same deal to, say, a pro-life group? Perhaps Freedom Watch -- and other conservative groups -- should seek the same discounted advertising space so generously provided to Moveon.org. It would be interesting to see if The New York Times would grit its teeth and cut them the same deal it gave Moveon.org. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Confederate Yankee reports that it appears that the newspaper allowed Moveon.org to run a full page ad calling General Petraeus a traitor at 61% off! (HT: Newsbusters).
It's quite a contrast to the way that CNBC and MSNBC have treated Freedom Watch, a group supporting the war -- both networks refused to run their ads.
Is there anyone, anywhere who believes the Times would offer the same deal to, say, a pro-life group? Perhaps Freedom Watch -- and other conservative groups -- should seek the same discounted advertising space so generously provided to Moveon.org. It would be interesting to see if The New York Times would grit its teeth and cut them the same deal it gave Moveon.org. I wouldn't hold my breath.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:38 AM
13 Comments:
At least NYT is consistent. They printed whatever Bush wanted to start an unnecessary war.
Perhaps Ms. Liebau is unaware of the convention in newspapers to keep the editorial and advertising departments separate. This is a standard conformed to by even small town newspapers. The suggestion that the New York Times would permit editorial interference in advertising is silly. Any constraints on advertising are made by the publisher, not editorial, and are always based on concepts such as "outrageous to public sensibilities".
The NYT is a newspaper and the others are licensed to use our public airwaves.
So you don't like the message but you've never asked for fair and balanced in the National Review or on Fox.
Republicans are such cry babies.
One thing is crystal clear . . . the New York Times is a blatant left wing propaganda machine whose subversive agenda is damaging our war effort and could be contributing to the deaths of our soldiers. It’s time to take off the kid gloves and confront this beast head on.
Mr. rplat, we live in a free country and we all cherish the First Amendment. You're welcome to disagree with the New York Times, but you would do well to heed the words of Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Don't you agree?
"chepe noyon"
Nonsense.
I served 35 years as a soldier so don't preach to me about the Constitution. I’m talking about a subversive entity that does everything in its power to destroy our traditions and our Republic. They're free to exercise their First Amendment rights and I'm free to find their behavior absolutely abhorrent.
I served 35 years as a soldier so don't preach to me about the Constitution.
Now THERE'S a non-sequitur for you!
I’m talking about a subversive entity that does everything in its power to destroy our traditions and our Republic.
So you consider those who disagree with you to be subversives who are out to destroy our Republic? Don't you think that you're overdoing it a bit? If EVERYBODY who disagrees with you is a subversive traitor who's out to destroy the Republic, then the world must be one vast conspiracy of subversives! ;-)
I'm free to find their behavior absolutely abhorrent.
By all means -- be my guest. And do keep on voicing your opinions -- that's what makes a democracy strong. But please -- don't try to suppress or disparage anybody else's exercise of their First Amendment rights. We're all in this together and we need to hear all voices. If they're wrong, explain why they're wrong. Don't just condemn them as subversives.
Chepe said:
"Perhaps Ms. Liebau is unaware of the convention in newspapers to keep the editorial and advertising departments separate."
Perhaps the "Newspaper of Record" is either unaware of this convention or has forgotten it.
"The suggestion that the New York Times would permit editorial interference in advertising is silly."
The suggestion that this idea is silly is - silly.
Democrats refuse to debate on the news network with the largest cable viewing audience in America because they say it is a biased network. Yet making a similar claim regarding the New York Times is "silly"?!?!?
I think a cliche used ad nauseum by Chepe involves the words "logic" and "flaw". And another is "non-sequiter".
In my previous post I think I misspelled "non sequitur".
Serves me right for being a smart alec in the first place!
Greg, have you any evidence that the NYT does not maintain the standard barrier between editorial and advertising? Clearly, the advertising department has its own editorial standards, but have you any evidence as to the nature of those standards? As I wrote earlier, I believe that most newspaper advertising departments have standards based on "outraging public sensibilities". Do you have any evidence to suggest that the NYT does not follow this convention?
First of all, given your use of the subjunctive (did I get that right?) "perhaps", Chepe, I followed suit with my own "perhaps".
If we're going to get into evidentiary detail, then, since you started it, why don't you produce evidence that Carol is unaware of the convention of separation between editorial and advertising departments in the newspaper business.
If, on the other hand, you were merely suggesting a possibility, then why pounce so defensively on my suggestion of an alternate possibility?
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
why don't you produce evidence that Carol is unaware of the convention of separation between editorial and advertising departments in the newspaper business.
You're absolutely right. I retract that speculative comment.
Now the ball's in your court. Produce your evidence or retract your statement.
Retraction of a comment speculative in nature was not the result I intended. Speculation of various possibilites on any number of topics is the very nature of this and other blogs.
Sometimes we run across a topic that is more important to us. On those occasions we spend much more time and energy trying to convince those whom are not like-minded. I truly, thoroughly enjoy those topics. And I appreciate the back and forth they generate. If I'm a participant, it forces me to research further than I otherwise would have. Sometimes my views change as result. Sometimes they are reinforced.
This topic, however, is not one of those. I will neither spend the time and effort to research the alleged overall liberal bias of the New York Times (or, in this case, the specific realationship between the editorial and advertising departments), nor will I retract my speculative comment.
My comment is what it is - a speculative retort. I will let it stand as nothing more than that.
Post a Comment
<< Home