Further proof that our MSM are nothing but shills for the Democrat and Socialist parties (one and the same?) inside this country:
The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org’s ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday’s Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
Gotta admit that even I am surprised with this one. Why would I be surprised when there is so much evidence of the bias inside our MSM. But the utter foolishness of this act is just beyond words.
One guy isn’t taking it sitting down tho, Uncle Jimbo from Blackfive filed a FEC complaint today:
So in my first act of political crankitude I filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission regarding the discount MoveOn received. Ya’ see in order to be fair newspapers and TV aren’t allowed to discount political or advocacy ads so they cannot favor one side, well Hmmmmmm. Here is my complaint.
And I’m hoping more jump on board.Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20463Dear Folks,
Sept. 10, 2007 the political advocacy group MoveOn.org ran an ad in the NY Times with the headline, Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Betray Us.
This ad also says "Cooking the books for the White House" making it political communications and subject to FEC regulations. It has been reported that MoveOn paid $65,000 for the ad by
The rate card price of such an ad on the NY Times political advocacy rate card is $181,692.
I sold political advertising for Capital Newspapers in Madison, WI during the 2006 elections. We were informed that there could be absolutely no discounts to the rate card prices for political or advocacy advertising based on federal law. The reason was self-evidently to stop the paper from favoring one viewpoint over another. It seems evident that if the reports are true, the NY Times has favored MoveOn by offering a huge discount to them for political advocacy advertising.
I request an investigation to determine if the law has been broken by the NY Times and/or MoveOn.org.
Over at ABC they contacted the Times and was told that they are fair with these sorts of things because they ran a conservative ad after 9/11 on the cheap, but that excuse isn’t panning out:
We all know and understand that the NYT’s, the LAT’s and all those in between are run by a bunch of KOS kiddies who think they know everything, but know so little. They belong to that special club, that "sacred and magical place" of anti-Americanism that bind them together.New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis tells me that it’s Times policy to not “disclose the rate that any one advertiser pays for an ad. The rate that is charged for an ad will depend on a variety of factors including how frequently the advertiser advertises with us, the day of the week, is it color, is it black and white, what section it appears, all of those kinds of things.”…
Mathis points out that on September 11, 2007, “we published a full-page advertisement from Freedom’sWatch.org, an organization whose view is opposite of MoveOn.org.”
Freedom’s Watch spokesman Matt David, however tells me the group was charged “significantly more” than MoveOn.org for its ad. The organization says it plans to run a response to the MoveOn.org NYT ad in the Times, “and we plan to demand the same ad rate they paid,” David says.
The fact that they received the "family discount" from the Times is big, the ad itself is even bigger. It shows that there is very little split amongst the Democrats. Doesn’t matter that they unanimously voted him in to run the war. No, because he says that Iraq is well on its way to being a success he now has to be a partisan shill, a traitor. They now believe that he perjures himself and knowingly sends our troops to their deaths to ensure that Bush’s policy gets implemented. All he is a puppet.
That is the message from these nimrods.
They support our troops you see, but think of them as nothing but bloodthirsty robots who deserve no respect.
That is the message of that ad.
And the Times, who publish state secrets without a second thought, who jump onto Wikipedia and type in lies, gave those same folks a wink and a nod and allowed them to dishonor General Petraeus and our fighting men and women….at a discount rate.
Just plain disgusting.
UPDATE
And check out this idiot:
I’m thinking he rode the short bus to school.How is it treason for a free press to allow groups of citizens to pay for something they want to advertise? And why is that wrong? And even if they DID give them a good deal, why the hell does that matter?
So he thinks there is nothing wrong if the Times gives a discounted rate for a political advertisement while at the same time NOT giving that same rate for the other side of the aisle.
Do you think this guy would think the same if it was the other way around?
Not on your life.
Crossposted from Flopping Aces
Support the Baltimore Reporter.
There are many different options available when purchasing a newspaper ad; in this case, it looks like MoveOn took a risk on the timing of their ad to get a lower price, and it paid off. Freedom’s Watch’s ad was pricier in part because it was in color, and probably even moreso if they got a fixed date for it. FYI.
Comment by verbose — 9/14/2007 @ 1:54 am