MoveOn.org ... "Shut UP!"

[NoZed Avenger]

I think the NY Times should be able to freely do whatever they want at any price they like.


But I do find this story funny, primarily because the Times has been a big proponent of the exact same "campaign finance reform" law that they're now accused of violating.

They want donations in kind to political organizations -- political speech -- to be regulated by government? Fine, then I say we give it to them. Nice and hard.

(as the saying goes)

 

[Elind]

You're obfuscating my question. Where is your proof or source of that statement that the NYT gave a discounted rate to MoveOn?

Are you not on the same page? Moveon.org paid about $64000 for the ad. The normal rate was about $150,000.

If this means that all political ads now get the discount rate, I suppose that is a good thing, except we will probably see more crap than we want to.

OK. I see correction(s) already posted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's still possible Moveon got special treatment, although demonstrating that is probably impossible even if it happened. If the NYT went out of their way to ensure that the add was placed the day they wanted it to be placed, for example, then the rate they were given would indeed be a discounted rate. But we don't have any evidence that was the case, it remains only a possibility, so unless someone within the NYT comes forward, we have to proceed as if it didn't happen that way.

Edit: Perhaps I spoke too soon. It appears that they were given favorable treatment:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_ny_times_admits_petraeus_ad_sold_to_move.html
""We made a mistake," Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, told the newspaper's public editor.

Mathis said an advertising representative left the liberal group [Moveon.org] with the understanding that the ad would run that Monday even though they had been charged the standby rate."

You know as a skeptic, this part of the Rove Playbook attack on Moveon is particularly annoying. First, it is a straw man. Second, it is meant to taint the New York Times with the fake paint of radical extremist as well as tainting Moveon. And the NYTs has been one of the few papers left (despite the Judith Miller debacle) which has been doing any investigative reporting into Bush and the Iraq affair. But third, and most important, the mainstream news and more than a few people who are usually critical thinkers are so easily sucked into the lie.

So let me ask the most important question before discussing Mathis' statement you have quoted here, Zig. Just who was it at the Times that granted this political favor? Who told the people in the business office to give a particular political group a favorable rate? How many people would have had to be in on it in order for the favor to be granted?

Because if there was such a person who controlled this 'favor' then there might be credibility to this story. Otherwise, it is just a distortion of a normal business practice by people with a political agenda to paint the NYTs as a radical untrustworthy news source. And those people are good at what they do. They are good at taking innocuous details and making them appear sinister, then pushing the story until it is adopted and amplified in the mainstream media circles.

What is Mathis' really saying there? Not that Moveon was granted some favorable rate based on someone at the Times having a political agenda wanting to favor the Moveon ad or agenda. She is saying someone in sales told the Moveon rep who purchased the ad space, "If you buy the standby rate, the ad will go out on the day you want, so don't worry about it." Big deal. And the spokesperson, Mathis is saying the sales rep isn't supposed to let ad purchasers know that.

Well, d'uh. A person at the desk whispers to the client something the management would prefer a perfect sales person not say. Management would prefer the sales person talk the client into paying the higher rate. The sales person casually reveals to the client, they don't really have to pay the higher rate.

That happens in businesses all the time. And unless you can show this sales rep only leaked this little tidbit to Moveon and no one else, all you have is a typical business transaction. Why is the media not asking for evidence there was some political motivation for the supposed "favorable rate"? Well, heck, that would ruin a perfectly good story and the news media is in the business of selling the news, not in the business of informing the public.

 

[Ziggurat]

You know as a skeptic, this part of the Rove Playbook attack on Moveon is particularly annoying. First, it is a straw man.

How so? What position is being attributed to a party which never expressed that position? It doesn't look to me like you're using the term correctly, because I really can't see what you're refering to.

Second, it is meant to taint the New York Times with the fake paint of radical extremist as well as tainting Moveon.

Moveon tainted themselves with the contents of the add - the fact that they got a price break when they shouldn't have is an issue with the NYT, not Moveon. And there are two issues I see with the fact that they gave a discount, neither one of which matches your discription. One is the possibility that they're biased. That applies whether or not you consider Moveon or the contents of the add extremist. Moveone is explicitly partisan, but the NYT is nominally not, and this damages their image as being nonpartisan. And lastly, there's the whole issue of campaign finance laws, which this appears to run afoul of. I'm not very fond of McCain-Feingold, but the NYT advocated exactly the sorts of laws they now seem to have run afould of. That's ironic, but they hardly have grounds to complain about the consequences of laws they advocated.

And the NYTs has been one of the few papers left (despite the Judith Miller debacle) which has been doing any investigative reporting into Bush and the Iraq affair.

That's nice, but the Moveon add isn't investigative reporting, it's a political add. However much you love the NYT for its other work, that doesn't make the current issue disappear.

But third, and most important, the mainstream news and more than a few people who are usually critical thinkers are so easily sucked into the lie.

Which is what? That Moveon got a discount? Seems to be quite true at this point.

So let me ask the most important question before discussing Mathis' statement you have quoted here, DR.

Why are you addressing me as DR? Did you confuse me with Darth Rotor?

Just who was it at the Times that granted this political favor?

Hell if I know. It's indeed quite possible it wasn't intended as a political favor, but by the Tim's own admission it wasn't supposed to happen, and Moveon should have been charged the higher rate. If it was an unintentional mistake, then the first of the two issues I raised might be excusable (though we still only have their word for it, and for a company whose primary asset is their reputation, it's a misstep to have put themselves in this position), but the second one doesn't go away regardless of why it happened. That's an issue you seem to either be unaware of or want to ignore.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How so? What position is being attributed to a party which never expressed that position? It doesn't look to me like you're using the term correctly, because I really can't see what you're refering to.

You mean you don't think there is a Republican hand on the paintbrush?

Evidence:
Republicans in the Senate and House called attention to the ad, backed the move calling for a formal condemnation.
Bush's prepared speech attacking the ad.
The usual blogishpere hype about the ad probably doesn't need any back room prodding by the Republican Party but I'm sure some of those blogs are generated and run by party loyalists who sit in on the talking points memos. Republicans have been good at this sort of public relations campaigns and have a strong organizational infrastructure for carrying the campaigns out.

Moveon tainted themselves with the contents of the add - the fact that they got a price break when they shouldn't have is an issue with the NYT, not Moveon. And there are two issues I see with the fact that they gave a discount, neither one of which matches your discription. One is the possibility that they're biased. That applies whether or not you consider Moveon or the contents of the add extremist. Moveone is explicitly partisan, but the NYT is nominally not, and this damages their image as being nonpartisan. And lastly, there's the whole issue of campaign finance laws, which this appears to run afoul of. I'm not very fond of McCain-Feingold, but the NYT advocated exactly the sorts of laws they now seem to have run afould of. That's ironic, but they hardly have grounds to complain about the consequences of laws they advocated.

Where is your evidence here, Zig that this was motivated by anything and not just a typical business interaction? Have you ever placed a classified ad? Ever had the sales staff tell you 'x' is a better deal or 'y' isn't necessary to pay for? It happens all the time in many businesses.

What evidence is there the discount was anything else? Are there scores of right wing political groups coming forward saying they paid full price for similar ads? Are there any advertisers coming forward saying they paid full price for similar non-political ads? Where is there one tiny shred of evidence this was some special deal? All there is is a sales rep who said paying for a particular day vs paying standby would get the same result and a higher up saying the sales rep wasn't supposed to reveal that information.

You don't have any campaign law violations here, at least not without a whole lot more evidence the lower rate had anything to do with the political position of the purchaser. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE OR INTENT, NONE!!!

That's nice, but the Moveon add isn't investigative reporting, it's a political add. However much you love the NYT for its other work, that doesn't make the current issue disappear.

There is no current issue. There is an effort to make it look like there is a current issue by people who are motivated to discredit past and future reporting by the NYTs that is not favorable to the Republicans.

Which is what? That Moveon got a discount? Seems to be quite true at this point.

So? Moveon and probably everyone else paid the standby rate. It is a distortion to claim it was somehow "special" with no evidence other than the fact there were 2 rates, one with a guaranteed day the ad would run and one with a range of days the ad would run. Moveon took a chance on the standby rate and a sales rep revealed it wasn't going to matter.

How anyone can construe that as sinister is really a sad comment on the gullibility of the public to be manipulated by carefully orchestrated propaganda and the news media's penchant for making stories sinister because they sell better.

If evidence emerges that there was

A) a person or person who provided special favors to Moveon, and
B) the person or persons were motivated to do so for political reasons,

then you have a story. Otherwise you have a distortion, not a story.

Why are you addressing me as DR? Did you confuse me with Darth Rotor?

Yes, I'm really sorry, it was the similar avatar and my careless reading. I fixed the post.

Hell if I know. It's indeed quite possible it wasn't intended as a political favor, but by the Tim's own admission it wasn't supposed to happen, and Moveon should have been charged the higher rate. If it was an unintentional mistake, then the first of the two issues I raised might be excusable (though we still only have their word for it, and for a company whose primary asset is their reputation, it's a misstep to have put themselves in this position), but the second one doesn't go away regardless of why it happened. That's an issue you seem to either be unaware of or want to ignore.

Do you have any experience with business? I guess I have to remain dismayed that people cannot comprehend this is just a common no big deal everyday occurrence that is being mis-represented.

Hypothetical re-enactment:

Moveon: "What will the ad cost?"
NYTs sales rep: "You can pay 'x' and place the ad on the day of your choice, or you can pay 'y' and the ad will run sometime during the next 7 days." [I believe there was a cheaper 3rd option with a longer standby as well.]
Moveon: "We really need the ad to run on this date."
NYTs sales rep: "Well, I can tell you that if you pay the standby rate, it will really run on your first choice of dates. There's a tiny chance it won't if someone comes along and buys a huge amount of ad space but that's really unlikely."
Moveon: "OK, give us the standby deal."
NYTs sales rep: "OK."

IF/WHEN evidence surfaces something else transpired, fine. But the fact some spokesperson was quoted saying the sales rep shouldn't have made that disclosure is not evidence of anything sinister. That's simply nonsense!

 

[Ziggurat]

You mean you don't think there is a Republican hand on the paintbrush?

"Strawman" has a specific meaning. Whether or not there's a Republican hand "on the paintbrush" or not, I don't see how "strawman" applies. I think you've got your terms confused. A strawman doesn't mean a puppet.

Where is your evidence here, Zig that this was motivated by anything and not just a typical business interaction?

Where would such evidence exist, if that's what happened? Only within the NYT, and if they don't reveal it, we wouldn't ever know. So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I freely admit (and rather explicitly did in my last post, in case you didn't notice) that it may not have been motivated by anything at all. But the problem doesn't go away if their motives were innocent, even if provably so.

You don't have any campaign law violations here, at least not without a whole lot more evidence the lower rate had anything to do with the political position of the purchaser.

This is incorrect. Whether or not this was intended as a political donation happens to be irrelevant to whether or not the law considers it as such. And because Moveon should have been charged a higher rate, the fact that they were not, regardless of why they were not, makes this a political donation.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE OR INTENT, NONE!!!

That's nice, but it's irrelevant to the law.

But the fact some spokesperson was quoted saying the sales rep shouldn't have made that disclosure is not evidence of anything sinister.

Sinister? No. Problematic? Yes. Accidents can get you in trouble. I happen not to like the campaign finance laws which this issue involves, because I think they're cumbersome and tread on free speech, but the NYT wanted these laws, they've got to play by them. And accidents, however innocent, don't get them off the hook.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The strawman I was referring to was regarding the complaint being about Moveon's ad. What the Times charged Moveon for it is unrelated to the complaint about the ad.

The rest of what you say I just don't agree. You haven't produced any evidence there was a special favor given to Moveon. And what do you mean motive isn't relevant? That's absurd! As is your interpretation of "should have been charged". A manager didn't like the fact an employee revealed that you get the same whether you pay for the super deal or not. Your interpretation that "should have been charged" means they payed for 'x' and got 'y' is not the interpretation I have. I say they paid for 'x' because they would get the same as paying for 'y' anyway. Look up the definition of "standby".

As for where the evidence would be? Other people who were charged more would be a good place to start. Showing a pattern of political favors would be something. There is none of that here. NONE!

You are just plain wrong here. The proof will be the fact no federal charges will be forthcoming despite Bush's stuffing the Department of Justice with Republican attack dog federal prosecutors with the command to go after any political target they can. (See all the threads on the AG Gonzales scandal.)

 

[Puppycow]

IF/WHEN evidence surfaces something else transpired, fine. But the fact some spokesperson was quoted saying the sales rep shouldn't have made that disclosure is not evidence of anything sinister. That's simply nonsense!

I think the best way to describe it is as a "lapse in judgement" on the part of someone at the Times.

Have you read what the Times own public editor wrote about this?

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.

 

[gtc]

Where is your evidence here, Zig that this was motivated by anything and not just a typical business interaction? Have you ever placed a classified ad? Ever had the sales staff tell you 'x' is a better deal or 'y' isn't necessary to pay for? It happens all the time in many businesses.

It seems that they paid less than the going rate for their advert. This may have been because the NYT is biased towards the group or it may have been a result of a typical business interaction whereby almost no one ever pays the full rate for anything (the going rate is almost always less than the full or rack rate).

However, the issue seems to be that newspapers are not allowed to charge less than the full rate for political adverts in order to avoid partisanship and/or the perception of partisanship.

It does seem like an odd law to me and even if the paper is biased it is not that big a deal. That said, the NYT does seem to be in the wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the best way to describe it is as a "lapse in judgement" on the part of someone at the Times.

Have you read what the Times own public editor wrote about this?

I only see a minor difference in this from what I've been saying, that is the sales rep quoted the standby rate without mentioning the regular rate.

How did this happen?

Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, told me that his group called The Times on the Friday before Petraeus’s appearance on Capitol Hill and asked for a rush ad in Monday’s paper. He said The Times called back and “told us there was room Monday, and it would cost $65,000.” Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said. Advertisers who get standby rates aren’t guaranteed what day their ad will appear, only that it will be in the paper within seven days.

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.”

...In the fallout from the ad, Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican presidential candidate, demanded space in the following Friday’s Times to answer MoveOn.org. He got it — and at the same $64,575 rate that MoveOn.org paid.

Bradley A. Blakeman, former deputy assistant to President Bush for appointments and scheduling and the head of FreedomsWatch.org, said his group wanted to run its own reply ad last Monday and was quoted the $64,575 rate on a standby basis. The ad wasn’t placed, he said, because the newspaper wouldn’t guarantee him the day or a position in the first section. Sulzberger said all advocacy ads normally run in the first section.

Mathis said that since the controversy began, the newspaper’s advertising staff has been told it must adhere consistently to its pricing policies....

Unfortunately these comparisons address after the fact, not before the fact situations. It does establish that the location of the ad within the paper didn't differ between the standby and the full price rate. We still need to know who typically pays the full price, was the sales rep just wrong individually, and is there any evidence the sales rep did this because it was Moveon? Now we are down to the paper claiming (and Moveon confirming) the sales rep was the only person involved. No instructions from higher up, no Moveon contacting it's connections at the Times to get a deal.

Moveon noted the standby rate was the typical rate they had paid in the past. That suggests it is the rate the paper charges everyone. The mention of pointing out to Freedomswatch.org the date their ad would run could not be guaranteed came after the sales staff would have been instructed to point that out to all clients.

You still either have an individual mistake, a common practice, or a single employee slipping favors to his political favorites. And I still see absolutely no evidence of the latter. NONE! Where's the evidence the sales staff wasn't quoting the standby rate to everyone on a regular basis? Instead you have the complaints filed by right wing groups after the fact, but none was apparently able to come up with incidents where they purchased ads and didn't get favorable treatment before the Moveon ad. You don't think the right wing didn't look hard for evidence like that? Of course they did and the fact they haven't produced any means they have found nothing.

The evidence is right here in these comments reflecting the well oiled Republican attack machine at work:

Vice President Dick Cheney said the charges in the ad, “provided at subsidized rates in The New York Times” were “an outrage.” Thomas Davis III, a Republican congressman from Virginia, demanded a House investigation. The American Conservative Union filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission against MoveOn.org and The New York Times Company. FreedomsWatch.org, a group recently formed to support the war, asked me to investigate because it said it wasn’t offered the same terms for a response ad that MoveOn.org got.

Karl Rove handbook play #382: Act outraged, and play #201: file formal legal charges*** whenever possible and make sure to get news coverage about the charges.

Then there is play #1: form groups with patriotic names to use as cover** for Republican Party activities and other right wing financed activities you want to appear as coming from grass roots movements and you want to hide the true identities of the actors involved in the activities.


If the Times was in the habit of favoring the left then this wouldn't be likely:

The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially. Jespersen has rejected an ad from the National Right to Life Committee, not, he said, because of its message but because it pictured aborted fetuses. He also rejected an ad from MoveOn.org that contained a doctored photograph of Cheney. The photo was replaced, and the ad ran....

...Were I in Jespersen’s shoes, I’d have demanded changes to eliminate “Betray Us,” a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.

And just as a post script here regarding straw men and red herrings, changing the focus to "how unpatriotic for anyone attack a soldier", when the real issue is Petraeus' report was a rose colored white wash is from the Rove playbook, play #2: create a straw man to distract the masses especially when you cannot defend the real attack.


**From SourceWatch:
Freedom's Watch

Freedom's Watch is a new White House front group[1] of prominent conservatives with a pro-Israel agenda[2] masquerading as a grassroots movement (i.e. astroturf). Formed only two weeks prior,[3] it began a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign on August 22, 2007 "to urge members of Congress who may be wavering in their support for the war in Iraq not to 'cut and run'."[4]

It has been described as "a covert 'cut-out'[5] organization"[6] and an "outfit dedicated to keeping the war industry thriving."[7] "A sort of shadow White House communications shop has emerged to help the beleaguered president sell his unpopular war to the American people," Jake Tapper and Avery Miller wrote August 22, 2007, at ABC News.[8]

"The group is organized under section 501(c)4 of the tax code,[9] meaning that it can lobby on issues but cannot expressly advocate for specific candidates. Its stated mission is 'to ensure a strong national defense and a powerful effort to confront and defeat global terrorism'," Mike Allen wrote August 22, 2007, in The Politico.[10]

American Conservative Union

The American Conservative Union (ACU) describes itself as "the nation's oldest conservative lobbying organization."[1]

"ACU's purpose is to effectively communicate and advance the goals and principles of conservatism through one multi-issue, umbrella organization. The Statement of Principles makes clear ACU's support of capitalism, belief in the doctrine of original intent of the framers of the Constitution, confidence in traditional moral values, and commitment to a strong national defense," its website states.[2]

"Over the years, ACU has been on the cutting edge of major public policy battles. Among ACU's significant efforts, past and present, are fighting to keep OSHA off the back of small businesses, opposing the Panama Canal giveaway, opposing the SALT treaties, supporting aid to freedom fighters in Marxist countries, promoting the confirmation of conservative Justices to the Supreme Court, battling against higher taxes, and advocating the need for near-term deployment of strategic defenses.

"In 1994, through its Citizens Against Rationing Health coalition, sponsorship of national 'town meetings,' and a 'Health Care Truth Tour,' ACU spearheaded the conservative response on the health reform issue.

"Whether fighting for lower taxes and less government spending, more effective and efficient military protection, or the cause of freedom world-wide, by speaking for the entire conservative movement the American Conservative Union is always 'Your Conservative Voice in Washington'," its website states.[2]

***Regarding the supposed complaint about election finance law violations that the ACU is charging: 'General Betray Us' Ad Violated Election Law, Group Says; By Randy Hall, CNSNews.com [CybercastNewsService] Staff Writer/Editor, September 20, 2007

The formal complaint charges that the organizations responsible for the full-page ad that ran in the Sept. 10 New York Times violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as amended, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002....

The American Conservative Union (ACU) complaint filed last Friday noted that "MoveOn's acceptance of the discount constitutes acceptance of a soft money contribution from a prohibited source ... in excess of federal contribution limits."

Contributions to political committees are restricted by federal law to $5,000 a year, and corporations are prohibited from making any contributions to a federal political committee, said ACU Chairman David Keene in the document.

...On Tuesday, the posted a transcript of a telephone interview with Steph Jespersen, director of advertising-acceptability at the newspaper, who said that accepting an ad "does not in any way reflect the official position of the New York Times, nor do we need to agree or endorse our advertiser's message or opinion."

Jespersen indicated that the advertising department accepted the MoveOn ad because it met the department's standards, and the group was charged the paper's normal rate for full-page, black-and-white "advocacy" ads that run on a seven-day "standby" basis.

"That means that while the client can express a preference that the ad run on a certain day, there is no guarantee that it will," he said. "If a client specifies the day, the cost is higher: $181,000 with an 8 percent discount for a full-page ad, or about $167,000."

"The lower cost of such ads reflects the flexibility that gives us," Jespersen said of the seven-day window. "Any political or advocacy group calling up today to request a standby ad would be quoted the same rate that MoveOn.org paid."...

One day later, the conservative non-profit group Freedom's Watch paid full price to run a full-page, full-color ad declaring that "Victory is America's only choice" in the war on terror.

"There are no 'standby' rates for color ads because the presses cannot accommodate color on short notice," Jespersen stated in response to the group's request to pay the same rate as the liberal organization did.

But, last Friday, the campaign of GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani ran an ad at the same rate the newspaper gave MoveOn.org in its advertisement days earlier.

That development led Bradley Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics and a former FEC chairman, to speculate in a column co-written with John Lott, Jr., a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland, that Giuliani received the same preferential treatment only "because MoveOn's preferential rate was discovered."

"MoveOn clearly thought it was running a political message that might influence the '08 elections - paying for the ad via its Political Action Committee and even including a disclaimer like those mandated by federal campaign-finance law that the ad was 'not authorized by any candidate,'" the authors stated.

Still, "even if the Times did give MoveOn a $100,000 discount out of a desire to promote the group's anti-war views (which the Times broadly shares) and help MoveOn influence the 2008 election, any Federal Election Commission investigation would fail to prove it," they added.

"The Times' flexibility in pricing allows it to argue that the transaction was simply a normal business deal that might at some point be available to others, even if not to Freedom's Watch earlier this month," Smith and Lott continued.

"In short, there's little to stop the Times, or other newspapers, from discriminating on the basis of political viewpoint when charging for ads," they said, "all of which demonstrates the foolishness of our campaign-finance laws."....

Trumped up charges, and a classic Rove attack strategy and the Democrats once again fail to redirect the attention to the real issue, Petreaus' 'follow the party line' report on the accomplishments of the troop surge in Iraq.

 

[JoeEllison]

Do you notice how this entire thread changes the subject away from the nonsense that General Betray-us fed Congress?

Once again, tricked by right-wing framing... nice work.

 

[Tailgater]

Do you notice how this entire thread changes the subject away from the nonsense that General Betray-us fed Congress?

Once again, tricked by right-wing framing... nice work.

Maybe if you added something to the thread other than telling people they are wrong without further explanation (which is basically both of these threads now) maybe you could keep it on track. Read both threads again if you disagree.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe if you added something to the thread other than telling people they are wrong without further explanation (which is basically both of these threads now) maybe you could keep it on track. Read both threads again if you disagree.

I don't know. I appreciate knowing he understands what I have been posting.

 

[gtc]

Do you notice how this entire thread changes the subject away from the nonsense that General Betray-us fed Congress?

Once again, tricked by right-wing framing... nice work.

Actually I think this is wrong.

This thread was started by a left wing person and was originally about the resolution against the MoveOn advert. It has since moved onto a discussion about the purchase of the advert by MoveOn.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems that they paid less than the going rate for their advert. This may have been because the NYT is biased towards the group or it may have been a result of a typical business interaction whereby almost no one ever pays the full rate for anything (the going rate is almost always less than the full or rack rate).

However, the issue seems to be that newspapers are not allowed to charge less than the full rate for political adverts in order to avoid partisanship and/or the perception of partisanship.

It does seem like an odd law to me and even if the paper is biased it is not that big a deal. That said, the NYT does seem to be in the wrong.

From the last link in my last long post,

Still, "even if the Times did give MoveOn a $100,000 discount out of a desire to promote the group's anti-war views (which the Times broadly shares) and help MoveOn influence the 2008 election, any Federal Election Commission investigation would fail to prove it," they added.

"The Times' flexibility in pricing allows it to argue that the transaction was simply a normal business deal that might at some point be available to others, even if not to Freedom's Watch earlier this month," Smith and Lott continued.

And while they go on the whine this can act as a loophole for getting around campaign finance laws which might apply, for example, to Fox News, in this case it protects everyone from being falsely charged when there is no evidence of a loop hole campaign contribution.

 

[JoeEllison]

Actually I think this is wrong.

This thread was started by a left wing person and was originally about the resolution against the MoveOn advert. It has since moved onto a discussion about the purchase of the advert by MoveOn.

That was my point! It started going in one direction, and moved in the direction of the right-wing talking points. Whether that talking point is correct or not is secondary to the fact that we're no longer talking about the content of the ad or the content of the Petraeus report.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That was my point! It started going in one direction, and moved in the direction of the right-wing talking points. Whether that talking point is correct or not is secondary to the fact that we're no longer talking about the content of the ad or the content of the Petraeus report.

And it was one of my points as well. Joe is addressing the thread, I'm addressing the focus being directed to the evil unpatriotic radical left wing pinko commies, Moveon and their allies at the NYTs.

 

[JoeEllison]

And it was one of my points as well.

Yeah, I noticed... yur smart fer a gurl...

Actually, I had posted my bit without seeing your bit. It is a pretty obvious point, though, don't you think?

 

[gtc]

That was my point! It started going in one direction, and moved in the direction of the right-wing talking points. Whether that talking point is correct or not is secondary to the fact that we're no longer talking about the content of the ad or the content of the Petraeus report.

OK. But my point was that it was never about the actual content of the Petraeus report and was, initially, not about the content of the ad either. There are several threads about the report if you want to discuss those.

Skeptigirl,
Why the picture of a strawman?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK. But my point was that it was never about the actual content of the Petraeus report and was, initially, not about the content of the ad either. There are several threads about the report if you want to discuss those.

Skeptigirl,
Why the picture of a strawman?

The OP was about, "Correct me if I'm wrong - but does anyone who voted for the resolution actually believes in the first amendment by him-/herself?"

My posts just reflected where the conversation was when I came in.

The straw man (gosh I can't believe this isn't more obvious) is about the attack strategy here both against Moveon and the NYTs.

Instead of addressing Petreaus' report, the Republican spin machine has managed to attack the messenger. Instead of addressing what Moveon was charging, that Petreaus' report was merely a Bush suck up rather than an honest assessment, the Republican spin has re-directed the focus to be about the ad. The spinners have also managed to make the argument about election campaign finance loopholes and the (phantom) bias of the NYTs.

Republican talking points have clearly been, "act outraged" "declare Moveon to be too radical to be taken seriously", and "portray the NYTs as being biased liberal media". So where in that do you see the content of Petreaus' report being defended?