1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

NT Times ombudsman says moveon.org got improper ad rate

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by hondo, Sep 23, 2007.

  1. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member


    Wow. What are the odds.
  2. Bill Brasky

    Bill Brasky Active Member

    Shit. I hate these kinds of stories. Fire the ad rep, send MoveOn.com another bill and give a conservative group the same rate. Of course, this will give conservatives material to bitch about for years and years and years....and it takes away from the real issue, which is Iraq.
  3. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    If you read the column, although the ombud draws his own conclusion, the NYT source says the advertising salesperson "made a mistake." Mistakes are something that of course happen on every newspaper every day in some form and to some degree. People who want to blow it up into a huge issue will conveniently ignore that reality. The NYT gave them a standby rate of nearly $65K -- quite a chunk of change -- the NYT didn't give them the ad for free. The thing is, conservatives can bitch all they want about liberals in the newsroom, but they'll be hard-pressed to find many in an advertising department -- it's like different species in nearby cages at the zoo, same zoo, different creatures.
  4. D-Backs Hack

    D-Backs Hack Guest

    Those are the 21st and 22nd paragraphs -- of a 23-paragraph story. Color me shocked.

    Your liberal media.

    Guess it's not much cause for concern when conservative advocacy groups get improper ad rates.
  5. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    Why shouldn't he get the same rate as moveon did? They set the precedent.
  6. D-Backs Hack

    D-Backs Hack Guest

    My beef was not with the NYT ad rates; it was how NYT reported the matter.

    Speaking of the ad rates, you seem to have no problem with two conservative groups getting the same rate that a liberal one did. So, why did you start the thread? Or did you not make it to the 21st paragraph when you first read the story?
  7. spnited

    spnited Active Member

    BTW Hondo, what is the NT Times?
  8. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    I assumed the NYT meant to give them the page for free, and that charging them anything was the mistake. No matter, they still get plenty of free columns throughout the paper each day.

    My only comfort in all of this is that President Clinton II will probably have the whole Moveon crowd locked up for being seditious in time of war. I can't wait for the NYT editorial page to explain how that's OK (since it's a Democrat, she must mean well).
  9. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

  10. Birdscribe

    Birdscribe Active Member

    Which, of course, is the idea.

    When you don't have any concrete ideas on how to win a war and build a Jeffersonian democracy in a country that is resistant to such concepts, this is what you do.
  11. "Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, “We made a mistake.” She said the 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. She added, “That was contrary to our policies.”

    OK, so this is the official explanation behind the "improper ad rate" and it doesn't make any sense. (Leave aside Hoyt's disgusting truckling to the faux outrage crowd for a moment.) Mathis seems to be saying here that the rate was not in and of itself improper, but that the sales rep made some sort of informal promise of when the ad would run.
    And that's pretty much it.
    Good for you, Clark, Have a fucking cookie.
  12. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    There really are three issues here, which the author does an injustice by combining into two.

    The first issue whether the ad itself is appropriate and within the bounds of what the NYT should allow. As an initial matter, the topic of the war is and the testimony of the general is obviously appropriate. Basically, the author's objection is that he thinks that "Betray Us" is a bad pun and that the NYT shouldn't allow an ad attacking a soldier. But in this case, he's not just a soldier -- he's the mouthpiece for the surge and is acting at least in a quasi-political sense. Ads in the NYT attack important politicans all of the time.

    The second issue is whether the rate was proper. It appears that it was not, given the fact that there was at least an implicit promise to run the ad on a specific date. But this important fact needs to be fleshed out -- what was said and by who? Also, given that Moveon.org has now paid a higher rate, Rudy's campaign should as well if they were promised that their ad would run on a specific day (which it appears that they were).

    The third and most important issue is what role an "bias" by the NYT had to do with running the ad and paying a lesser rate. The author throws out the the phrase "liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org" without later doing anything to refute it later on. He drops the ball on this issue and basically leaves the impression that the NYT acted improperly.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page