Now the NYT is 'sorry' it printed the MoveOn ad?

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html?ref=opinion


Betraying Its Own Best Interests

By CLARK HOYT
Published: September 23, 2007


FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.

But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.

snip//

Did MoveOn.org 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 MoveOn.org 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.

snip//

For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if it’s abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues. For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in Jespersen’s shoes, I’d have demanded changes to eliminate “Betray Us,” a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html?ref=opinion

[rox63]

1. Are they also "sorry" they printed the pre-war lies about Iraq's supposed WMDs?

:sarcasm:

[SoCalDem]

What they SHOULD be sorry about was withholding the pre-2004 story

about the illegal wiretapping.. That could have swung the bogus election :(

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. You Can't Unring A Bell

[B Calm]

3. Just to prove how sorry they are, they will give MoveOn their money back.

satire....

[robcon]

5. Will they send Moveon a bill for the difference?

n/t

[B Calm]

6. ha ha...

[malaise]

4. Anything but discuss the lies

The only word for all this rubbish about an ad with a question sign is obfuscation.

They're discussing this on WJ.

[monmouth]

7. Did they print the swiftboating of Kerry and Murtha???

[babylonsister]

8. "I don't recall." nt

[trumad]

9. Are they sorry for Whitewater?

[pampango]

10. For printing an ad for an interest group accusing the Clintons or

for covering the story at all.?

[trumad]

15. You do know the history of the NYT and Whitewater don't you?

[pampango]

19. Evidently not as well as you do.

[trumad]

23. OK then... start here...

http://www.google.com/custom?q=jeff+gerth&sa=Google+Search&cof=AH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3Ac32a032061318778%3B&domains=dailyhowler.com&sitesearch=dailyhowler.com

[cali]

11. While the vast majority here see this as another

sign of cowardice or collusion, I see it as an illustration of why the name calling/implied name calling, was such a boneheaded, tone deaf move.

That friggin' ad sucked all the oxygen out of debate on the Dwell Amendment, on Habeas, on the war, in general.

Arrgh.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brentspeak]

20. The right wing is upset that the Dwell Amend. was quashed?

Who would have known? You sure got a bead on those "right wing talking points"...

[ima_sinnic]

21. oh stuff a sock in it.

some here can be counted on to oppose We The People every time. Name calling? what is "boneheaded" if not a name-call? sheesh. Petraeus is a * lackey and a professional liar, just like the entire "administration" of charlatans and public treasury plunderers currently raping the public. I notice that The Public did not exactly respond unfavorably to "such a boneheaded, tone deaf move," since MoveOn suddenly raised about $2 million within days of the "condemnation." Such "bonehead" moves should be made more often.

[cali]

22. I won't tell you to stuff a sock in it.

But I sure will challenge your bullshit.

Who are you to decide who "We the People" is? I belong to "We the people" in the only meaningful sense, the Constitutional one, every bit as much as you do. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't give you the right to try and marginalize me.

And I certainly didn't namecall. I said it was a boneheaded tone deaf move. I didn't call anyone boneheaded. I actually think a lot of MoveON. I just think this was a tactical mistake. Disagree with me, sure, but don't go on a rant wherein you so much of accus me as BETRAYING some nebulous "We the People" that exists primarily in your own head.

Yeah, MoveOn's ad was great for MoveOn. I don't think it advanced the cause of LIBERAL debate about vital issues one iota. Maybe that won't be true in the long run, but so far I've called the results of that ad absolutely accurately from the rirst OP I wrote, the day the ad came out.

[madfloridian]

27. Who are you to judge the rest of us?

?

[madfloridian]

26. I view it with fear. The media is terrified just as our Democrats are.

I think it tells of troubling things to come.

I am sad you think all is well.

[Le Taz Hot]

12. Right.

Like the NYT had any credibility left.

[spanone]

13. doesn't matter what they paid, they got about $20,000,000.00 worth.

[riona]

14. My heart breaks for the NYT

I'm sure there was a trail of tears all the way to the bank.

[maxkeiser]

18. forget the NYT; watch Al Jazeera English

The NYT has lost all credibility; reading it is a serious waste of time if you want to get some news... watch Al jazeera english instead;

http://uk.youtube.com/aljazeeraenglish

[Desperadoe]

24. Keep in mind............

that this column is an opinion piece, written by the Public Editor, Clark Hoyt. Notice this byline at the bottom of the column:

-The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.-

Let's keep this in perspective.

[spanone]

25. in general, the nytimes is 'sorry'

re: judy miller

[madfloridian]

28. They are attempting to silence MoveOn.

It spread to the Senate floor and it spread to the NYT.

If you don't think this is scary stuff, then your head is in the sand.

[scarletwoman]

29. I hope people understand what this really means. What's been happening in this country over the

last few years is that contrary or unpopular opinions, especially opinions that challenge the conventional wisdom framing of issues altogether, are being denied access of any sort to the mass media -- even if they attempt to pay for privilege.

The issue ISN'T whether this particular MoveOn ad was "good" or not. The issue is that MoveOn can be denied access to the mass media as a means of getting its message out, even if MoveOn has the money to pay for it.

Who owns the media controls the message -- THAT is the issue.

sw

[yardwork]

30. Looks like MoveOn really hit a nerve. I think I'll send them some money.

[Eric J in MN]

31. He jumps from no "attacks of a personal nature" to "civility."

If the NY Times won't print any ads of "personal nature" in the future, and that ad qualifies, then MoveOn can't even ask if someone will "lie."

It isn't civil to ask if someone is going to lie. It's no more-or-less personal than asking if someone's testimony will "betray us" though "betray us" is a harsher phrase.

He doesn't cite any NY Times guidelines saying ads have to be civil.

[ljm2002]

32. But the Senate vote didn't have a chilling effect...

...on free speech, did it? At least that's what we keep hearing.

F*ck it. Playing by the rules is agreeing to a rigged game. I refuse to accept the rigged game.

Thankfully, Moveon got a $2M influx of funds as a result of this, which the pundits have yet to mention when they talk about how "damaging" this was to their -- and our -- cause.

It's getting ugly and the fact that people would justify this attack on free speech is really galling to me. Oh I get that people might disagree with the ad's wording, what I don't get is the acceptance that we should tolerate the forces that are freezing our position out of the dialog altogether.

That is really what this is about. The usual rabid right wing suspects lined up in force on this one, and yet we have people here who seem to think it is understandable and okay.

Back during the Vietnam war fiasco, the powers that be were shocked -- shocked! -- at the lack of decorum by protesters. They remained strangely un-shocked at the carnage we had unleashed half a world away. But it was those protesters, those bands of committed activists, those people who refused to remain polite who actually had an effect.

Some things never change.

[Jed Dilligan]

33. "A soldier"

Bullshit. There's a difference between fighting a war and planning one, then lying your ass off to defend it.

[DemReadingDU]

34. now on CNN.com

NYT editor slams paper over 'General Betray Us' ad

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/23/nyt.moveon/index.html