Once again, the New York Times has to admit to a screw-up, adding to a list a mile long.
From the Washington Post:
After two weeks of denials, the New York Times acknowledged that it should not have given a discount to MoveOn.org for a full-page advertisement assailing Gen. David H. Petraeus.
The liberal advocacy group should have paid $142,000 for the ad calling the U.S. commander in Iraq "General Betray Us," not $65,000, the paper's public editor wrote yesterday.
Clark Hoyt said in his column that MoveOn was not entitled to the cheaper "standby" rate for advertising that can run any time over the following week because the Times did promise that the ad would run Sept. 10, the day Petraeus began his congressional testimony. "We made a mistake," Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis was quoted as saying.
MoveOn, saying it had no reason to believe it was paying "anything other than the normal and usual charge," said yesterday that it would send the Times $77,000 to make up the difference.
The Times also violated its own advertising policy, which bars "attacks of a personal nature," Hoyt reported. He wrote that the episode "gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the 'liberal media.' "
Why did it take so long for The Times to admit that MoveOn "mistakenly" got a discount rate for its "General Betray Us" ad?
The lib outlet was caught assisting a like-minded lib advocacy group MoveOn.org.
The loons at The Times had to be humiliated, but as usual, the cover-up ends up being worse than the offense. At the very least, the denials compound the humiliation.
What's weird is The Times needs every penny it can get. You'd think that even a hate-filled attack against General Petraeus wouldn't be tempting enough to offer MoveOn a discount.
To make it all better, MoveOn is sending a check for $77,000 to make up the difference and to make the matter go away.
It's too late for MoveOn to buy its way out of this one. It's too late for The Times to come clean.
Statement by Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Political Action Executive Director, Resolving the New York Times Ad Rate Issue
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. According to the Public Editor, the Times' vice president admitted that the company's 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." According to the Public Editor, "the group should have paid $142,083."
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 organizations, 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.
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. Of course, MoveOn believed that it was engaged in an arms length negotiation regarding advertising rates with the Times and assumed that it was being quoted advertising prices consistent with the Times' usual and
normal charge.
MoveOn continues, of course, to stand by the content of the advertisement and to urge citizens and their elected representatives in the Congress to focus on the continued dishonesty of the Bush Administration and the American blood and treasure being lost in a war for which the Administration has no exit strategy. Certainly that issue is more worthy of the attention of the electorate and the media than the mistake of an advertising representative or the wording of an advertisement.
It's MoveOn's lawyers in CYA mode!
Poor MoveOn.
The group had no clue that someone at The Times made that unfortunate "mistake." Nonetheless, it is acting out of "an abundance of caution" and wiring the rest of the money for the ad to The Times.
What a coincidence!
That's exactly what Hillary Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said when referring to the $850,000 of dirty Norman Hsu money accepted by the Hillary campaign -- "In light of recent events and allegations that Mr. Norman Hsu engaged in an illegal investment scheme, we have decided out of an abundance of caution to return the money he raised for our campaign."
Hillary herself used the phrase yesterday on Meet the Press.
You know, as soon as my campaign found out what I and dozens of other campaigns did not know, that he was a fugitive from justice, we took action. And out of an abundance of caution, we did return any contribution that we could in any way, no matter how indirect, link to him. And I believe that we’ve done what we needed to do based on the information as soon as it came to our attention.
Caution is certainly in abundance these days, isn't it?
MoveOn makes it clear that it's not backing down over the content of the "General Betray Us" ad.
Nope. Slamming a war hero isn't the problem. It's the money for the ad.
It's funny that MoveOn takes the stance that it was ripped off by The Times.
[W]e believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations....
Good grief.
The money matter isn't the only black eye for The Times. There's also that policy matter.
The New York Times' public editor Clark Hoyt wrote that in his opinion, not only did the advertiser get a discount it was not entitled to, but the ad violated The Times' own written standards.
"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,'" he wrote, adding that the phrase "Betray Us" was "a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier."
Blah, blah, blah.
Too little, too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment