Sunday, September 23, 2007

What liberal media?

Hello, New York Times, have you met the petard? The NY Times' ombudsman declares that the newspaper violated its own policies to publish MoveOn's attack ad on General David Patraeus:

Did get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?

The answer to the first question is that paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

The answer to the second question is that 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." Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was "rough," he regarded it as a comment on a public official's management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.
The New York Times justifies their actions by mouthing about the "tough choices" they must make but these choices consistently find favor on one side of the political spectrum and not the other. Watch that stock hit a five-year low.

Extra - More details from Althouse.


Anonymous said...

But, but... The New York Times is owned by a corporation, and corporations are, by definition, conservative.

Anonymous said...

Apparently, Pinch wrestled with his conscious and won. Now a special procsecutor should be appointed to get to the bottom of his cover-up. What does Pinch know and when did this occur.

Anonymous said...

Too bad it wasn't an ad about how one-limbed war hero Max "Osama" Cleland was mushy on protecting America. That's a message the GOP doesn't get phony-outraged about.

Anonymous said...

Too bad Lefties are evidently too stupid to be moved by evidence. Max Cleland lost his election because he was obviously more concerned with having a unionized group providing security at airports than in protecting the US from potential terrorists aboard planes. That was his choice, he could have voted the other way without affecting the outcome at all.

He must have thought his veteran's experience would overcome that. He was wrong.

Anonymous said...

Too bad Righties are evidently too craven to truly support military heroism, except as a useful prop mallet with which to issue talking points and intimidate opponents.

This video says it all about "obvious concern," and where it's lacking: