Timeswoman Katherine Seelye pursues the "General Betray Us" discounted ad puzzle and delivers a great laugher. Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis explained to Ms. Seelye why there was no bias displayed by the ad department when they gave a discount to MoveOn:
The newspaper had maintained that it charged MoveOn the same “standby” rate of $64,575 that it charges all advocacy groups for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that can run anytime in a seven-day window. But the newspaper’s spokeswoman, Catherine Mathis, was quoted Sunday by The Times’s public editor, Clark Hoyt, as saying an advertising sales representative had “made a mistake” in granting the discount.
The sales representative should have charged $142,083, she said, because MoveOn wanted the advertisement to run on a specific day — Monday, Sept. 10 — and was therefore not entitled to the “standby” rate.
In a follow-up interview yesterday, Ms. Mathis declined to comment on how the original mistake occurred or how it came to light.
Asked if the sales representative was sympathetic to MoveOn or was unaware of the pricing policy, Ms. Mathis said: “The salesperson did not see the content of the ad at the time the rate was quoted. There was no bias.”
No bias! Because the sales rep had no idea at all which side of the issue MoveOn was taking!
The story reprises a bit of the background:
MoveOn.org said yesterday that it paid The New York Times $77,508 after the newspaper revealed that its advertising department had undercharged the organization for an advertisement that ran two weeks ago and proved controversial.
Many critics, including some of the Republican presidential candidates as well as Vice President Dick Cheney, had accused the newspaper of giving subsidized rates to MoveOn, a liberal antiwar organization, out of sympathy with its views. The advertisement challenged the credibility of Gen. David W. Petraeus, commander of the American forces in Iraq, and asked whether he should be called “General Betray Us.”
However, the Times Public Editor stirred the pot last Sunday, as Ms. Seelye explains:
The newspaper had maintained that it charged MoveOn the same “standby” rate of $64,575 that it charges all advocacy groups for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that can run anytime in a seven-day window. But the newspaper’s spokeswoman, Catherine Mathis, was quoted Sunday by The Times’s public editor, Clark Hoyt, as saying an advertising sales representative had “made a mistake” in granting the discount.
For some odd reason Ms. Seelye mentions the criticism of the ad and/or the Times from the right (President Bush, Rudy Giuliani and Dick Cheney are named, as well as "some of the Republican presidential candidates"), but she neglects to mention that the Senate voted by 72-35 to condemn the ad. Since Joe Biden, Elizabeth Edwards and eventually even Hillary Clinton spoke out against the ad, one might say we have achieved a rare bipartisan consensus here, although Ms. Seelye didn't notice it.
But there is no liberal bias at the Times. Glad they cleared that up.
Paging Corky Boyd.
===============
Posted by: kim | September 26, 2007 at 09:46 AM
Oh, and there is another issue that probably could use some investigation. The GenBTU ad needed to run on a particular day, but I could see that most of the time when an advocacy group wants to run an advocacy ad the timing is such that a standby arrangement (especially with a 60% discount) would satisfy their needs just fine. This is also implied by the excuse that the advertising sales rep made the mistake -- if that's really true, the most innocent explanation is that virtually all of these ads really do run standby and so it's become a mental habit. So that brings up two questions which I'd love to have answered:
1) Do all advocacy groups get offered the standby rate if they allow their ad to run standby?
2) Saturday has the lowest circulation, while Sunday has the highest. Do groups that the NYT agrees with get their standby ads on Sunday while groups that they disagree with get their ads on Saturday?
I also have a question for Tom. What was this sentence supposed to say?
Posted by: cathyf | September 26, 2007 at 09:48 AM
Corky's pont was that the Times should be in trouble with the FTC over offering different rates, and certainly is with their advertisers. This was bias on the business side; a no no no no no.
======
Posted by: kim | September 26, 2007 at 09:56 AM
Also, any discount on advocacy advertising can be suspect on two counts, one is that this is the gravy of newspaper advertising, and there better be a good business reason for a discount. The other is in the nature of advocacy, a discount to an advocate is donation to the cause of the advocate, which is what has us all smelling something rotten. Well, it isn't just rotten, it's illegal.
========================
Posted by: kim | September 26, 2007 at 10:06 AM
I'm enjoying the irony of the Betray Us ad betraying the Times instead.
=======================
Posted by: kim | September 26, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis explained to Ms. Seelye why there was no >insert "bias"< displayed by the ad department
Posted by: CDeBoe | September 26, 2007 at 10:15 AM
So she didn't mention the Senate vote--really TM, you can't expect her to put everything little old thing in this piece.
Posted by: clarice | September 26, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Don't forget NYT ethics columnist Randy Cohen was revealed to have actually donated to MoveOn.org.
Posted by: tyler | September 26, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Kim, and helping Bush and the war effort, too. I'm hoping the poisonous hatred at Kos, etc., overflows in front of the general public before the election.
Posted by: Ralph L | September 26, 2007 at 10:27 AM
kim, a discount for a standby rate is a good, solid business reason. Newspapers need to publish using an even number of pages, given a fixed page size, 365 days per year. Yeah, I can see that on a day where the paper just happens to comes up as an odd number of pages then you can buy a page worth of advertising for very very cheap -- because their other choice is to have a blank page. I suspect that a newspaper's biggest advertisers get an arrangement where whenever there is leftover space in an edition, they get an ad slotted into the space for free, and that the ad reps have a couple of ads of different sizes and shapes already in a file ready to go for just this possibility. And that is also a completely valid business purpose.
Posted by: cathyf | September 26, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Senate voting 72-35? Where'd the extra 4 states sneak in there?
Posted by: Dr. Kenneth Noisewater | September 26, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Yes, cf, and their argument now is that it didn't deserve the discount. But what do their books say, and what do their advertisers say?
=======================================
Posted by: kim | September 26, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Quote:
Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien | September 26, 2007 at 10:54 AM
What are the odds ANSWER and others didn't get similar deals?
Posted by: clarice | September 26, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Apologies for the improperly closed blockquote tag.
Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien | September 26, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Umm, it took the NYTimes nearly two weeks to "discover" that someone in advertising sales made a "mistake"?
In the face of the highly visible scrutiny and criticism the ad created, how could it take more than one day to determine such a mistake was made?
Pathetic. How stupid does the Times think Americans are?
I'm not buying it, but then I stopped buying the Times a long time ago!
Posted by: Forbes | September 26, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Bias?
What are the chances that the Swift Boat Vets could have gotten the discounted "standby" rate from the NYT?
Zero.
Posted by: fdcol63 | September 26, 2007 at 10:59 AM
"because their other choice is to have a blank page."
No, no, no - don't forget that there is a plethora of propagandists sitting in their cubbies in that building (that is worth more than the "business" side of the Times) completely capable of generating enough drivel to fill any page.
If the Times were an actual business, then you would be absolutely correct - standby rates are no different than the airline's fare adjustments due to seat availability. In this instance, Junior Sulberger was able to advance the type of vicious propaganda that he so dearly loves and get paid for it and (theoretically, anyway) avoid responsibility for the ad content.
The decision to run the ad shows all the subtle acumen displayed in tearing down the fence that was keeping the geriatric Select dung heap from public view. Junior is trapped in a long death spiral - the bond rating agencies are eyeing him now.
I wish him (and his family) the full enjoyment of the ride to oblivion.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 26, 2007 at 11:02 AM
72 + 35 = 107. Don't we have 100 senators?
Posted by: Sue | September 26, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Hmmm...Tom has fat fingers. The link says 72-25.
Posted by: Sue | September 26, 2007 at 11:04 AM
But kim, the point is that MoveOn got the standby rate for a non-standby ad, not that there is something inherently wrong with giving advertisers substantial discounts to compensate them for being flexible about the timing of their ads. It is simply good business to give a customer a discount for adapting his purchase in a way that saves the seller money.
The NYT exhibits plenty of real examples of incompetent business practices. There's no need to make any up.
Posted by: cathyf | September 26, 2007 at 11:04 AM
It was 72-25. Here is the roll call. Obama was AWOL as were Biden and Cantwell.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 26, 2007 at 11:08 AM
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire
But you sure as hell don't get the discounted price..
Posted by: HoosierHoops | September 26, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Yeah how could anyone guess at what the content might be of an advert. taken out by MoveON.org? No bias here, move along, move along.
Posted by: Gmax | September 26, 2007 at 11:29 AM
In other news Dan Rather contends that the memos are really really accurate and he was just reading what CBS put in front of him anyway...
Not especially good liars, these progs be.
Posted by: Gmax | September 26, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Yes, Cathyf, and the FTC requires that they be evenhanded, by law.
==========================
Posted by: kim | September 26, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Being in the newspaper business, while standby rates are common in these types of cases anything order that would generate that kind of discount would need to go through multiple levels of approvals before it could be processed. In no way was this just a sales executives mistake.
Posted by: Jimh | September 26, 2007 at 11:33 AM
A Times spokesperson says there was no bias involved, that the ad rep couldn't know what MoveOn might say, and that the rep simply 'made a mistake'. Reporter Seelye seems to buy the whole preposterous load.
That's why I stopped reading the Times in the late 1980s. Over and over again, I found myself thinking, 'Are Times reporters that stupid, or do they think their readers are that stupid?'
Both, I guessed. And ultimately, it made no difference. Because either way, the New York Times was an untrustworthy source of information.
Posted by: lyle | September 26, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Why is everything so bold?
Posted by: Korla Pundit | September 26, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Oh, somebody put a closing [/a] tag instead of a closing [/b] tag...
Posted by: Korla Pundit | September 26, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Some Senators voted for the bill before they voted against it.
Posted by: Korla Pundit | September 26, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I see MoveOn has offered to pay the difference between the standby rate and the normal advocacy rate, and now says Giuliani should pony up the difference too. They're obviously hoping to short circuit an investigation by the Federal Election Commission. I say the fact that the deal was made should trigger the FEC investigation, not whether or not they ultimately paid full price. And I think Giuliani should refuse to pay full price: he was offered a rate, and he took it. End of story. Not that this paltry $70,000 difference will break MoveOn, but the irony of MoveOn ultimately paying full price and STILL triggering an investigation, while Giuliani does not, warms my heart. F
Posted by: F | September 26, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Oh here on the heels of Columbia inviting the holocaust denier, we have exhibit # 2 being Hofstra. They apparently are hosting a legal ethics conference. One invited Speaker? Lynne Stewart who of course was disbarred for her assistance with the blind sheik in smuggling out his communications to the minions.
I wonder if the American Institute of CPAs would consider asking the auditos from Arthur Andersen who audited Enron to give an ethics talk?
Posted by: Gmax | September 26, 2007 at 11:48 AM
but she neglects to mention that the Senate voted by 72-35 to condemn the ad.
Minor nit: There are only 100 members of the Senate, unless Reid has managed to sneak 7 new ones in while we weren't looking. The vote was 72-25, with 3 members absent (Obama, Tim Johnson) or abstaining.
The other problemw with the ad was that the NYT also has a long-standing policy against placing ads with "personal attacks" in them. Otherwise an advocacy group should be able to place a "HILLARY IS A DYKE!" ad for the same rate MoveOn was quoted.
Posted by: Orion | September 26, 2007 at 12:37 PM
I'm sorry to be so off topic, but I wanted to point out to Jane something we discussed in an earlier thread.
In response to the Camp Meeting Association's ban, two couples seeking to get civil-unioned on the boardwalk have filed complaints with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights. The Camp Meeting Association has filed a lawsuit to allow it to continue the ban.
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2007/09/new-jersey-to-o.html>Source
Posted by: Sue | September 26, 2007 at 12:44 PM
What struck me about this whole thing was this comment from the MoveOn Honcho: "Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. 'We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,' he said."
But the ad was time sensitive and Pariser must have known it was time sensitive when he placed it. So, assuming this really is a "mistake" and the NYT does not routinely give MoveOn special treatment, Pariser must have known that the NYT had quoted him the "wrong" rate. But if you have a time sensitive ad and the ad rep quotes you a rate (a rate with which you are familar) and the rate is the "wrong" rate (meaning your time sensitive ad might not run when it is suppose to) that is exactly when you have a discussion with the ad rep. Which means that Pariser's comment makes no sense.
The only way Pariser's comment makes sense (provides an explanation as to why Pariser did not question the rate he was quoted) is if MoveOn was rountinely getting special treatment from the Times on its ads. If MoveOn always gets special treatment from the Times, Pariser would not question the fact that he got a standby rate for a guaranteed date placement.
So, how many times have the Times' ad reps made this particular mistake? (We may have found an explanation for decreasing ad revenues at the NYT.)
Posted by: bmcburney | September 26, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Orion,
Tim Johnson was present and voted 'Aye'. Obama, Biden and Cantwell were the only AWOLs.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 26, 2007 at 12:52 PM
GMax, very bad analogy. The charges against Arthur Anderson were pitched by SCOTUS, unfortunately only after the company--a truly fine one--was forced out of business.
The Court held that the destruction of records in the ordinary course of business w/o a hint that they were3 the subject of federal inquiry could not possibly be w/in the purview of the sloppily crafted federal "obstuction" statute.
That prosecution and Enron inspired legislation has made the accounting business an extraordinarily risky one to the detriment of us all.
Posted by: clarice | September 26, 2007 at 12:54 PM
bmcburney- I agree. Pariser's comment makes sense if that is the rate they are always given.
Posted by: MayBee | September 26, 2007 at 01:05 PM
Yup. Check out all the MoveOn and ANSWER ads for starters.
Posted by: clarice | September 26, 2007 at 01:16 PM
The premise that the NYT must have known what it was doing flies in the face of what I know about running newspapers. I am repeatedly bitten in the butt by circumstance. It is why my job as publisher is to make things idiot-resistant, not idiot-proof. Do not -- I repeat -- do not underestimate the skill of idiots to outmaneuver checks and balances.
And, yeh, enough people at the NY Times must have seen the ad before it ran. In all probability it drew little attention because it was in concert with the views of much of the staff. Many of them were probably delighted. But that is different from a malicious interpretation, which gives them too much credit.
Posted by: sbw | September 26, 2007 at 01:25 PM
Clarice
I am a CPA by training but have not done audits in sometime. The criminal charges against the company were indeed pitched. If you look carefully I was speaking about the actual auditors of Enron, and the fact that they signed off on what turned out to be horribly inflated numbers. Ethics charges are not criminal, but are actionable by the profession, similarly as the Bar acts.
Its a good analogy and I stand by it, although I do agree with you that the government acted as judge, juror and executioner in the matter of the firm. It was an appalling action, and the legal system has not found a way to unring the bell.
Posted by: Gmax | September 26, 2007 at 01:30 PM
But SBW, that would be true not only of the MoveOn ad but other MoveOn ads, the ANSWER ads, etc. At some point, if my hunch is right, someone higher than the ad taker must have noticed and did nothing.
Posted by: clarice | September 26, 2007 at 01:37 PM
Surely such an inflammatory advertisement was run past the NYT lawyers?
Posted by: PeterUK | September 26, 2007 at 02:05 PM
Move On should 'Get Over It.' Plame had some friends here that came out right when she complained. Alot of the people who started Move On were retired CIA, so maybe they should wonder about laws and 'getting over it,' but that might be related to CIA breaking IIPA laws of federal employees not employed by CIA and Ames who did the same thing; alot like Plame showing up and investigating Ames, which is why CIA was not allowed to investigate other federal employees or access their files like Ames did.
Get over it might involve a song. The No Fear Act(that has changed ove the years), which would be the excuse for not going to court under IIPA because DOJ allowed illegal access by CIA or an Operations Officer like Plame, should remind federal employees of the DEA's slogan for operations officers. A DEA NOC outside the US as an operations officer might be in trouble based on operations overseas involving inadvertantly poisoning another federal employee overseas during covert operations. The excuse of the whistle blower law would not be valid because no one asked the victim to testify and the operations officer was not asked to court because the employee overseas who was poisoned would not go to the media or court becuase of the IIPA law and the lives that would have been lost like Plame's admission in 'Vanith Fair' and the operatons offices that were asassinated the next day.
Of course the No Fear Act and IIPA both fall under the DOJ, like DEA. Fitzgerald works for DOJ, OSC _ Office of Special Counsel, which does the investigating of IIPA and the No Fear Act(HHS), so he might be biased in investigating the No Fear Act and IIPA, which he handles( the IIPA recipients like those at Harvard). He might prosecute the DEA DOJ employee without testimony from the victim and pass on the CIA employee, which is what happened to the DEA employee(he was set up) because they would not ask the victim what happened. So, we have Ames and Plame. Ames was prosecuted and Plame wasn't. There is no difference, except that Plame and her access to non CIA employee records was not checked like Ames, which is how he was caught, which is why a federal employee might not go to the media and not talk much because of what happened when Plame showed up; Ames repeating itself(alot of spies getting caught, but late in the game and allowed to pass), which resulted in a misunderstanding in the intelligence community and some un american activities by those who thought they were doing the right thing, although illegal.
Move On might wonder at why The NO Fear Act was created. It was created because a DOJ federal employee was set up because he was not allowed to go to court and prove innocence. The theory is the poison was meant for the agent and not the other federal employee, which is why you stay away from those guys.
Posted by: FD | September 26, 2007 at 02:16 PM
I wonder if inserting a closing tag here will finally solve the all-bold problem?
Posted by: Mister Snitch! | September 26, 2007 at 02:18 PM
Hmm... guess it's not that simple!
Posted by: Mister Snitch! | September 26, 2007 at 02:19 PM
Is there anyone on the editorial side of the NYT who would recognize that it was an inflammatory advertisement? These are people who believe that "Bush is a poo-poo-head" is a plain, simple, uncontroversial fact.
Posted by: cathyf | September 26, 2007 at 02:20 PM
Mister Snitch!, I take it that you are using safari... There is a bug in the CSS for the JOM site so that open bold and italic tags stay open over div boundaries, but it is impossible to close a tag over a div boundary. So once one is open, it is impossible to close. Now all of the browsers except safari ignore the rule (technically speaking, safari is not the browser with the bug, but the browser without the bug) so when I put four bold-closing tags a few comments after clarice larwyned the thread it was fixed for everybody not using safari to read the thread.
My recommendation is to use Opera rather than safari. It has lots of other cool features, too. You can also use firefox, but it has some weird pathological interaction with the site, too, where once a thread gets too long it will freeze the browser window when you try to load the thread.
Posted by: cathyf | September 26, 2007 at 02:30 PM
Well I use firefox and have never experienced anything hinky, lord knows the threads sometime wrap around the block here...
Posted by: Gmax | September 26, 2007 at 02:34 PM
I worked in newspaper advertising for years and there is a single truism. If any error is made, it is a given the ad rep will be the one who gets the blame. Ads that run Sat., Sun, or Mon. usually have a deadline of Friday. However, a full page ad would never run sight unseen nor accepted right on deadline. First the advertiser would need to let the rep know that they want to run a full page ad, so the space could be blocked. (There would never be a blank page, newspapers would run their own ad for circulation, or some other inhouse service, if they have to fill unused space.)
And I can't think of any advertiser I ever had that would run a full page ad without proofing the copy and approving it beforehand. A newspaper is not going to take a chance of the ad containing some error that would cause the newspaper to have to give a full or partial refund because of that error. Artwork would also have to be approved. This ad was inhouse days beforehand, you can bet on it.
Posted by: Sara | September 26, 2007 at 02:40 PM
I think the Petraus ad is despicable and all that, but where MoveOn is concerned, I'm much more interested in the information now coming out that the whole immigration rally and demonstration last year in Los Angles was a Soros organized and funded event. You remember, kids got out of school, businesses had to let their Hispanic employees off for the day, thousands and thousands of rally goers waving Mexican flags and all that. It is what kicked off the who ginned up immigration brouhaha just before the election and Dems and Reps alike bought into it.
Posted by: Sara | September 26, 2007 at 02:45 PM
who = whole
Posted by: Sara | September 26, 2007 at 02:48 PM
Posted by: cathyf | September 26, 2007 at 02:52 PM
A liberal blogger has filed a complaint against the presidential campaign of Republican Rudy Giuliani for breaking federal election laws by accepting a discounted advertisement rate from The New York Times.
The Politico reports that Lane Hudson, a blogger who also recently filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission about the presidential campaign of Republican Fred Thompson, has called on Giuliani's campaign to pay the difference between the full and discounted ad rates.
***********
Isn't Lane Hudson the guy connected to the Foley scandal?
Posted by: Sara | September 26, 2007 at 02:58 PM
OT - The husband who was married to the 14 year old in the Warren Jeff's case has just been charged with rape. He was 19 at the time.
Posted by: Sara | September 26, 2007 at 03:00 PM
Via Hot Air:
Sixteen days after the ad appeared in the Times, the final chapter to this travesty is written. The vote was 341-79; here’s the roll if you’re curious to see how it shook out. Italics denote Republicans, roman typeface denotes Democrats. What do the 79 nays have in common?
Posted by: Sara | September 26, 2007 at 03:04 PM
"Isn't Lane Hudson the guy connected to the Foley scandal?"
Yes
Posted by: PeterUK | September 26, 2007 at 03:12 PM
Sue,
I can't remember what in particular we were jawing about that the link confirms (or denies).
Posted by: Jane | September 26, 2007 at 03:27 PM
A liberal blogger has filed a complaint against the presidential campaign of Republican Rudy Giuliani for breaking federal election laws by accepting a discounted advertisement rate from The New York Times.
I saw that yesterday and it just made me laugh.
Posted by: Jane | September 26, 2007 at 03:34 PM
FD's mysterious post reminds me..How long has it been since Hoekstra asked the CIA general counsel for a ruling whether Plame was covered by the IIPA.
I've seen no reply perhaps I ought to confirm there hasn't been one with Hoekstra's office before I write this up.
Posted by: clarice | September 26, 2007 at 03:38 PM
"What do the 79 nays have in common?"
Membership in the Copperhead Caucus is a safe bet. Find a nit - there's a louse somewhere nearby.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 26, 2007 at 03:41 PM
I forgot--which Soros operation is funding Lane Hudson--or don't we know yet?
Posted by: clarice | September 26, 2007 at 03:47 PM
Posted by: cathyf | September 26, 2007 at 04:03 PM
I think it's well beyond the time that an investigation should be opened into the rates charged by the NYT for political ads.
It's my opinion, that the NYT (and other news organizations) has previously run afoul of Campaingn Finance laws by giving preferential rates (in kind donations) to certain political candidates based upon their party affiliation and or viewpoints.
Posted by: Jason Coleman | September 26, 2007 at 04:13 PM
I thought lane Hudson was somehow connected to Crew. And there is a Rahm Emmanuel connection as well.
Posted by: Jane | September 26, 2007 at 04:28 PM
Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive filed the first FEC complaint regarding the NYT and the Petraus ad, the day the ad appeared, IIRC.
Posted by: Sara | September 26, 2007 at 04:32 PM
Yes, Jane , that's my recollection, too. THough he's been nowhere as successful since Foley. Maybe by next October he'll come up with something better.
Posted by: clarice | September 26, 2007 at 04:36 PM
For you Schuster buffs, you'll love this take down:
Posted by: Sara | September 26, 2007 at 04:39 PM
That last was Via Hot Air, sorry.
Posted by: Sara | September 26, 2007 at 04:41 PM
Long history of libaeral attacks on the military
Kerry's recent smears on their intelligence and winter soldiers' lies.
Turbin Durbin nazi comparison
Clinton abhored military
His sec/state saying that solir were so prett that they should be used or somthing similiar
Dan Rathet, and Mary Mapes & DNC attacks on W service. National guard and reserves were in VN when W joined up to fly F102s. Many thousands of them gave thier lives there. Could this be pattern?
Posted by: PaulV | September 26, 2007 at 04:42 PM
Shuster’s game was disgusting and, it’s turning out, wasn’t true to the facts. The soldier he named didn’t live in Blackburn’s district.
This really is disgusting. Is there no legal remedy for someone the victim of this type of abuse and slander?
Posted by: lifeofthemind | September 26, 2007 at 05:42 PM
You did see this, right?
Matt Cooper to the rescue!
Posted by: hit and run | September 26, 2007 at 06:25 PM
Well.
George Will, 9/27/2007:
TM, 5/23/2007:
Posted by: hit and run | September 26, 2007 at 06:32 PM
How long has it been since Hoekstra asked the CIA general counsel for a ruling whether Plame was covered by the IIPA?
About a third as long as it's been since Kerry promised to release his military records.
Posted by: bgates | September 26, 2007 at 07:06 PM
NY Times is now denying that the Betrayus ad was a "personal attack".
Posted by: Jane | September 26, 2007 at 07:13 PM
It's a red-letter day here a JustOneMinute. Best of the Web linked Tom directly (and deservedly so).
Taranto also covers a court case involving our very own Jeff. But I don't understand what he has against classical music or why the Law was involved. Just another case of frivolous lawyering, I guess.
We're lucky to be able to read their work on a regular basis (or 2/5, at least).
Posted by: Walter | September 26, 2007 at 07:29 PM
Clarice: At some point, if my hunch is right, someone higher than the ad taker must have noticed and did nothing.
Yes, Clarice, you said it more directly than I did, but the ad likely would not have gotten out of the advertising chain of command. It seems unlikely anyone would have thought it would pinch Pinch in the butt.
Cathyf, seldom does our ad department talk to news folk. Different business. Different life.
Posted by: sbw | September 26, 2007 at 07:48 PM
fdcol63: "What are the chances that the Swift Boat Vets could have gotten the discounted 'standby' rate from the NYT?"
At the time, I heard that the Swifties tried to buy an ad but the NYT refused to run it. Period.
Posted by: Bostonian | September 26, 2007 at 07:56 PM
Walter:
Taranto also covers a court case involving our very own Jeff.
What? I had no idea. And I had doubts about that being true...but, then, at the end of Best of the Web, there it was...
Weird.
Posted by: hit and run | September 26, 2007 at 07:58 PM
Supposedly there is another democrat debate tonite. If I can bear it, I'll live blog it in the less active Jena thread.
Posted by: Jane | September 26, 2007 at 07:58 PM
Oh H&R, you are the "best of the web" every day!
Posted by: Jane | September 26, 2007 at 07:59 PM
Jane:
NY Times is now denying that the Betrayus ad was a "personal attack".
The NY Times is a media organization constantly at war with the facts.
Posted by: hit and run | September 26, 2007 at 08:04 PM
Wierd.
I didn't see an Obama or Edwards piece, so I assumed (with all that implies) that the case was your submission.
On a side note, I've just realized that I've written only HnR-related comments for quite a while. I'll have to commit myself
...
to writing something on topic soon.
Posted by: Walter | September 26, 2007 at 08:05 PM
Jane:
If I can bear it, I'll live blog it in the less active Jena thread.
I don't know...sounds like that might be feigned. Last debate you were saying you couldn't stop...
I may not be able to stick around for it. But rest assured, if you do liveblog it, I will not be at peace until I get to read it.
Oh, and just remember, you can't spell Jena without J-A-N-E.
Posted by: hit and run | September 26, 2007 at 08:07 PM
Would be interesting to see if the commission paid to the sales rep for the ad was actually basd on the higher non-standby rate.
Posted by: Molon Labe | September 26, 2007 at 08:13 PM
Hit & Run
had not heard much from you in awhile..
Thought you had tried to fix a chainsaw.
Posted by: hoosierhoops | September 26, 2007 at 08:28 PM
I did operate one two weekends ago. Successfully, without incident.
Ready for fall bonfires. If the dern temps would stay out of the 90s here. At least the statewide ban on open fires has been lifted...that kinda dampened things a bit, unlike the drought we've had this year...
Posted by: hit and run | September 26, 2007 at 08:43 PM
Missed you blue eyes!!
I am still depressed about Ted Olson, Dinner Jacket killing our soldiers and landing in this country to applause, and Hillary and Bill getting away with the usual. Whats to post?
I wish American would wake up. Oh well.
GO JANE
Posted by: Ann | September 26, 2007 at 09:01 PM
It is easy to confuse VIPS (theintelligence branch of the marxist Institute for Policy Studies which hosts the likes of Plame-baiter like Larry "Terrorism is not a problem" Johnson, Vince,"Iraq was behind OKC, stop looking at me like that'
Cannistraro; Frank Snepp's Israeli baiting
Christison duo, 9/11 truther and liberation
theologist Ray McGovern, and Dean of the Saudi lobby, former Riyadh station chief
Ray Close with MoveOn.org. but the're not the same. Their goals and methods are often
the same; much like a venn diagram. By the way, what's the skinny on the judge who threw out two parts of the Patriot Act
today.
Posted by: narciso | September 26, 2007 at 09:21 PM
Here's the odd thing. Eli Pariser says they'd paid that rate before. Yet, in all of the MoveOn.org Political Action FEC filings since 1993, there's just one entry for New York Times advertising. And that was for $7,500 in 2005. The only other Times entries are for subscriptions and NYT employee contributions.
More here.
Posted by: km | September 27, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Interesting, Kim!
Posted by: clarice | September 27, 2007 at 01:04 AM
Taranto also answers another question:
Posted by: cathyf | September 27, 2007 at 01:08 AM
From BotW:
Breaking News From 1745
"Judge Tosses Hit-and-Run Charge vs. Bach"--
been googling yourself again, eh?
Posted by: Ralph L | September 27, 2007 at 02:11 AM
"NY Times is now denying that the Betrayus ad was a "personal attack"."
In Britain that would have got both MoveOn and the NYT sued.
I do not believe the advertising department does not scrutinise adverts for content.
Posted by: PeterUK | September 27, 2007 at 06:18 AM
It was late, but your clue should have been the link. Despite taking two weeks to do it, it still doesn't sound like Moveon and the NYT got their stories straight. I'm particularly intrigued by Pinch's remarks about 'erring on the side of public discourse', echoing legal justification for his outrage.
===================
Posted by: kim | September 27, 2007 at 07:19 AM
Link to the Seelye piece?
Not really sure I buy anyone's argument on this yet... except the one TM mentions as a laugher.
The standby ad could have possibly been printed on the day in question, according to the standby agreement, although it does seem to be too much happy coincidence.
However, Hoyt says that the content of the ad was a definite wrong because is contained a personal attack. This the Times ought to be shouldering first.
Posted by: The Librarian | September 27, 2007 at 09:26 AM
Does Petraeus have recourse, or would a proxy?
=========================
Posted by: kim | September 27, 2007 at 09:36 AM
I like the fact that the spin right around the incident was that the Democrats wouldn't say such thing; they expected others to do it. This was followed by virtually no condemnation among the Democrats except for a few exceptions, like, notably, John Kerry. Now, however, that it is turning into a stink, the Democrats are starting to condemn it. They let their anti-war fervor carry them too far from the facts, and have basically been rope-a-doped about Iraq in the last few months. Now this NoKo in Syria lends real dimensions to the 'axis of evil'. Maybe I'm a little speculative, but this smells like a big policy change among the Democrats.
========================
Posted by: kim | September 27, 2007 at 09:42 AM
I can't imagine Petreaus or a proxy would have the time or inclination to take recourse. He could bring a libel case I suppose, which, because he is a public figure would fall under NY Times v Sullivan, which if I recall correctly, requires that the malice be purposeful - which surely it was.
I'd rather see him run for President the next time around, instead.
Posted by: Jane | September 27, 2007 at 10:07 AM