NYT apologizes for Moveon ad - fascist Senate resolution accomplishes mission.

[JackRiddler]

For those who make light of the Senate's apparently unprecedented resolution attacking the free speech of a U.S. citizens' group (which the resolution explicitly identified as "liberal" and "antiwar") --

For those who seek excuses because half the Democrats went along with this fascist distraction, and who say, oh, it doesn't have force of law, it's trivial, who cares --

-here we go: The chilling effect of the resolution is now obvious.

Note that the following coverage omits the resolution, although it and not the right-wing group's protest was obviously the key step in the chain of events leading up to the Times's apology.

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/09/24/the-new-york-times-apologizes-for-moveon-org-ad

The New York Times Apologizes for MoveOn.org Ad
Submitted by Scott Goldberg on September 24, 2007 - 4:24am.

Clark Hoyt, public editor of the New York Times, wrote in a column yesterday that the newspaper made a mistake when it gave MoveOn.org, an organization dedicated to ending the Iraq war, a $77,508 discount on a full-page ad targeted against General David H. Petraeus. MoveOn paid $64,575 for an ad that typically costs $142,083.

General Petraeus had spoken before Congress and warned of the perils associated with a rapid withdrawal of forces from Iraq. MoveOn’s headline asked, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

“The ad infuriated conservatives, dismayed many Democrats and ignited charges that the liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org with a steep discount in the price paid to publish its message,” wrote Hoyt.

He went on to admit that his investigation into the special ad rate was requested by FreedomsWatch.org, a group advocating national defense, because it was not offered a similar discount.

The executive director of MoveOn.org, Eli Pariser, commented on the incident, saying his group had called three days before the ad’s placement and received the quote of $65,000. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said.

Pariser also added, "While we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by most organizations, out of abundance of caution we have decided to pay that rate for this ad.''

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/09/24/the-new-york-times-apologizes-for-moveon-org-ad

[global1]

1. And What Did Dan Rather Tell Us About CBS Caving To *Co Pressure?.....nt

[Rhiannon12866]

20. K&R. Excellent point. If they can get to CBS News and the NY Times,

what hope do we have of getting the truth through any mainstream news outlet in this country?!:scared:

And no wonder that so many of the American people just don't get it...:-(

[Totally Committed]

2. I just cancelled my subscription to the Times, and gave their "apology"/cave-in as my reason....

I won't be a party to the cowardice and hypocrisy that this vote was about. NO WAY!

Cancell your NYT subscriptions, and tell them WHY!

TC

[pacalo]

23. I had done the same but I wasn't provided a "box" to explain my reason.

What did I do wrong?

[Pawel K]

31. You should be calling congress

they are the dipshits that are responsible for this.

[Cha]

34. I would if I fucking hadn't stopped

reading the nyt after they bellowed the war cry via that traitor little big mouth judy miller.

[robinlynne]

3. I dont understand why moveon is paying that extra money. The "discount"

was because they were not guaranteed placement on a certain day. Romney got the exact same discount. I agree with the OP that the senate set a dangerous precedent.

[JackRiddler]

45. Ah, but see...

The sales people gave MoveOn a wink to the effect that their ad would definitely be in on Monday, thus (gasp) circumventing the standby terms.

This is NEVER, EVER EVER DONE to sell newspaper ads. And any time in all history that it has happened - if ever it happened before - the newspaper has promptly issued an apology and held a big investigation. Didn't you know?

[hlthe2b]

4. Forward this to Randi Rhodes... her tirade against callers who

were concerned with the wider implications of this vote last week were cut off in such an abhorent and rude way as she called them every epithet she could think of to reflect their supposed "stupidity." It was amazing, even for Randi. She does so much harm when she has these episodes and I don't recall her ever apologizing when she goes off "half-cocked" without having all the facts (nor having taken the time to listen or absorb the actual points being made that run counter to her foregone conclusion).

[tritsofme]

6. She is a nutcase.

I don't know why progressives even waste their time with that show.

[hlthe2b]

9. I'd pay to hear Sam Seder return for a three hour daily show...

and Thom Hartman is a treasure....RFK Jr. and Pap on Ring of Fire are wonderful on the weekends. Otherwisem AAR has really jumped the shark. :shrug:

[glitch]

21. I logged in on the slowest dialup imaginable to agree to this post. :) nt

[hlthe2b]

28. Your worthwhile Seder support duly noted...

:toast:

[riverdeep]

30. Ha! I heard Rhandi on Friday too

I'm not writing her off in any way. She's got too much good stuff to say, and I learn something every time I listen. BUT. I just disagree on this with her. I felt really bad for that woman who called right after Rhandi went off, RR was unnecessarily harsh. I think RR's point was that people on the left became outraged over a vote that didn't in her view have real-world impact and not over Rather keying us in on media bias, on Blackwater running roughshod, and the other issues she was mentioning.

But she doesn't get it, we are mad at and knowledgeable of those issues. That's why capitulating to the right in the framing of the debate is a deadly strategy. Politically for the dems, literally for those overseas. She said if dems from red states didn't vote yea they would be smeared. I got news for you, they will be anyway. So you might as well do the right thing.

[hlthe2b]

35. Yes... that woman said she was 71 yo and a first time listener...

and geebus, RR was so damned rude to her! I am still pissed.

Yes, when Randi is funny and on her game, she can be great. But when she is on one of her rude egotistical tirades, she shows the worst of what progressives can do to ourselves...

[ljm2002]

5. But this is not a free speech issue...

...doncha know?

:sarcasm:

[tyedyeto]

7. Somewhat misleading headline

They apologized for the discount but not for content of the ad.

[JackRiddler]

13. Hardly.

That they made any statement is unusual and a product of the force.

No, not the content, but trying to go through the tripwire of pressure from both sides they made an important concession.

The point is, henceforth they're not giving anyone political the cheaper rate.

[NoPasaran]

8. Sounds like the NYT's mea culpa was about giving MoveOn the discount

So now MoveOn has decided to pony up the $77,508 difference. Of course, they seem to have raised half a million or so in donations after GWB denounced them, to say nothing of all the publicity. SOunds like a pretty good deal for Eli and friends. I always knew Cornyn was dumber than a sack of hammers.

[JackRiddler]

15. ??? Good deal?

This is what I'm talking about.

The Senate - a body with the power to pass laws along with the House and President, laws that can put people in prison, or get them killed - failed to do anything about the war, but then turned around and passed a censure resolution against a citizens' group identified explicitly as "liberal" and "antiwar." But this is just a good P.R. deal for MoveOn?

What's going to happen when the executive declares a crisis, imposes martial law, rounds up people like Eli Pariser? You think this Senate hasn't shown how they will stand then?

[NoPasaran]

25. Oh the dread martial law card!

What a bunch of paranoid crap.

[JackRiddler]

46. Right, this coming from someone

who has a logo supporting the senator from New York (the 9/11 state) who gave the most important single vote in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War Resolution.

No movement to unlimited executive power has been made in recent years.

There are no "enemy combatants," Guantanomos, doctrines to justify torture, preventive permanent detentions, renditions, Homeland Security monoliths, color-coded fear systems, surveillance without warrants, calls that those who oppose the war or the administration are traitors or terrorists, camps to detain tens of thousands being built, use of disasters like Katrina to rehearse of martial law procedures decades in the making...

It's just the "dread martial law card." Which you can mock, since you feel no need to make an empirical observation either way.

What do you think a police state is? When some cartoon dictator announces it on TV, is that what it takes to convince you? Well, it probably won't happen. And maybe you are among those who will always feel safe.

[Jim Lane]

52. That it was about the discount, not the content, is important

I agree with you there.

I agree with half of your concluding statement: "SOunds like a pretty good deal for Eli and friends. I always knew Cornyn was dumber than a sack of hammers." A good deal for MoveOn, undoubtedly, but I'm sure Cornyn is happy, too. The Republicans have energized their base, generated a useful distraction from the ugly facts about the catastrophe in Iraq, and probably boosted their own fundraising.

The Senate resolution was completely unjustified, and I'm disappointed in the Dems who voted for it. Nevertheless, there's a legitimate case to be made that, from the point of view of ending the occupation ASAP, the MoveOn ad did more harm than good.

[jobycom]

10. Fascist? Unprecedented? Attacking free speech?

I started to post a picture of an Auschwitz pyramid, but changed my mind.

Those words have meanings, and they don't fit that silly little amendment. The Senate makes hundreds of statements like that a session. It's bogus, it's bullshit, it's a waste of time (the only people still worried about it are DUers who should be spending their time attacking Bush), and most of all it was just a political trap set by the Republicans. But it wasn't fascist (it carried no legal weight whatsoever, and there is no law that the Senate can't express an opinion), it wasn't unprecedented (they do this crap all the time), and it definitely didn't attack free speech--at least any more than the original ad did, since it attacked Petraeus's words in about the same way the Cornyn Amendment attacked MoveOn's.

The NYT has been a shill for the Republicans since before 2000. They started several of the lies about Gore and kept them circulating long after they'd been debunked (check out Katharine Seelye). They were probably readying their mea culpa before they printed the ad.

MoveOn made a mistake, pure and simple. I love them, but they had to know that ad would do exactly what it did--focus all attention on the name-calling, and bury the message. They've seen the Republicans and their PR Department, aka the mainstream media, do this before. Why would they expect it to be different this time?

And yes, MoveOn's message was right, and yes, the Senate amendment was ridiculous and should not have been passed, and no, the NYT should not be joining in the beatdown. But honestly, in the real world we've all witnessed for the last seven years, what the hell did they expect to happen?

There's an illegal war on, this isn't the time for ego stroking.

[JackRiddler]

17. I call out bullshit, madam/sir

You say:

The Senate makes hundreds of statements like that a session. It's bogus, it's bullshit, it's a waste of time

Show me a precedent. Show me when the Senate specifically condemned the free-speech political statements of a U.S. citizen or citizen group.

[creeksneakers2]

32. Its the bigger picture

The right wing controls national discourse.

We might not be in Iraq were it not for critics' silence because cowardice from right wing slanders against patriotism. Everybody who tells the truth gets smeared. Everybody who doesn't go along with the right wing line gets trashed. The warnings against what would happen in Iraq were silenced.

Since then, the same tactic has been used to push false pictures of progress in Iraq. "The media won't cover the positive news from Iraq" etc. Now we have another "victory is right around the corner" PR offensive from the right and the same slander of patriotism tactic has been used to silence critics. Not long ago the same tactic was used to curtail our constitutional rights with FISA legislation.

Until Democrats decide to stand up to right wing bullying they'll always be pushed around. Once again, the right wing will control election debate and the Democrats will wind up losing.

[JackRiddler]

47. Well, come on now...

Show us some of those "hundreds of statements" like this that the Senate makes in a session. Go for it.

[Old and In the Way]

11. You might want to read the NYT blog on this today.

Most of the people responding are pissed that they are capitulating on their position....

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/moveon-to-pay-full-times-ad-rate/#comment-268791

[Tyler Durden]

16. My response to the Times.

CONGRATULATIONS. Beyond the fact that Patraeus has done his best in the past to bolster the Bush Administration in their Iraq Adventure with such nonsense as the discredited "Mobile Bioweapons Labs" he "found," your organization is an advertising funded NEWS PAPER. To apologize for an AD is pandering in the highest form.

Rest assured that you have alienated a good portion of the 52% of the American population who are diametrically and unequivocally opposed to the war to pander to the 29% who would support a FROG if he croaked "BUSH."

[cali]

12. So all the dem Senators who voted for it

are they fascists now too? Should I just put F-VT after Pat Leahy's name now?

It's absurd to characterize the vote that way.

[lonestarnot]

14. Maybe not fascists but certainly ASSHOLES!

[cali]

18. Fuck that.

Pat Leahy has been a great Senator. And yet you and others are willing to label him an asshole because of this vote.

He voted against the IWR. He votes against funding the war. He wrote and sponsored the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act. He wrote and sponsored The War Profiteering Prevention Act. He's held over 50 hearings investigating bushco. Gonzo, Rove and others are out of power because of those hearings. He's continuing investigations into malfeasance by Rove and Gonzo. He has been named one of the 10 most liberal members of the Senate for over 30 years. He wrote legislation preventing the sale of cluster bombs to Israel. He voted for Reid/Feingold.

And that's someone you consider an asshole because you abhor his vote on one non-binding resolution?

[JackRiddler]

24. Fine, we'll let Leahy slide. After all, his office was anthraxed for having principles.

Now explain the other 21 fascist assholes.

[cali]

27. I just don't see them as fascist assholes and

it really burns me to see labels tossed around with such ease. I don't much care for some of those Senators but I get why they voted the way they did. The real problem is Reid; he's the one who let it on to the floor, putting Senators like McCaskill and Nelson in a bind.

[JackRiddler]

33. It burns me more to see fascist Senate condemnations tossed around with such ease. n/t

[riverdeep]

37. I can't find the link, but I believe it was an amendement

to a larger bill. Reid agreed to the number of amendments, but not to what they would be. Well, that was one of them.

[lonestarnot]

39. He should have known better!

[JackRiddler]

22. One need not be a fascist party member...

To support something fascist. Sometimes one can even do it out of misguided reasons, and I'm willing to extend Leahy some benefit of the doubt - after all, this guy knows fascism very well, he was the recipient of anthrax back when he (briefly) spoke up against the USA PATRIOT Act.

The spirit of this resolution is fascist. Whether or not its condemnation carries any legal sanction or punishment. It's saying, "liberal" "antiwar" groups who accuse (truthfully and correctly) a general with impolite words should shut up, a general's uniform provides immunity from disrespectful language no matter how much of a criminal and a liar he is.

No comparable resolution exists aimed at any other U.S. citizen or group, at least in my asking here for precedents no one has come up with any.

[ananda]

19. Dismayed many Dems??!!

Not -this- Dem!!!

Not -any- Dems I know!!!

So it must be the muthafukka Dems
who aren't really Dems.

[riverdeep]

26. Rove you goddamn genuis

We're all sitting here talking about MoveOn instead of the failure of Iraq policy. Just like when Rathergate blew we talked about whether a typewriter could produce a certain script, instead of the fact that Junior is an AWOL chickenshit. Well WE know this is a non issue, but out there it is taken with some amount of seriousness. I'm reminded of that quote a neocon said about 'we make our own reality'.

Ah well. The dem senators should have just all sat out the vote, like Obama, and said 'when the Republicans want to stop meaningless political theatre and get back to America's business, we'll be ready.'

[JackRiddler]

36. oh please

Every damn time the Democrats blunder into some right-wing nonsense, someone has to blame the "mastermind" Rove.

There were simple solutions for this madness: don't let it come to a floor vote. Vote it down. But no.

[riverdeep]

41. I was being facetious about Rove-thought it would be self-evident from the wording

But what I'm not being facetious about is a coordinated strike among republican high operatives and way the dems fall for it with amazing regularity. If you don't believe this mock outrage was coordinated, then we're on a very different page.

[JackRiddler]

42. No, we agree - but for the outrage

No excuse, but this is what Republicans do. One doesn't expect anything from them, except to vaguely hope they all get pinned to a sex scandal.

I find it much less excusable when Democrats go for this resolution. They are not only supporting the same fascist stupidity as the Republicans, but also revealing themselves as opportunist hypocrite liars.

Oooh! (Accurate) Name-calling! Pass the condemnation!

[Zandor]

29. The ad dismayed this Democrat, too

They handed Democrats a hot potato and had it handed right back to them.

Kudos to the Times for admitting thier error.

[Cha]

38. Oh, yeah, the fucking nyt..

big "kudos" to them. :sarcasm: :sarcasm: and the red is for all the blood spilled in IRaq that they helped perpetu-ATE!

[Zandor]

40. Huh?

They screwed up and gave MoveOn a lower rate.

[JackRiddler]

43. Yeah, right.

Like the NYT would be issuing a public apology for that if there had not been a Senate condemnation of the ad.

This "screw up" is normal business and happens all the damn time - has anyone here ever purchased ads? The 142 K is like the rat-rate at a luxury hotel; the sales people come to a separate deal with each customer depending on season, availability, repeat business and what they think you're good for; everyone's made to feel they're getting some kind of "discount." The standby usually means that you're getting in. If they admitted it in advance (to close the deal, obviously) there's nothing unusual about that either.

The NYT caved in to political pressure and may be selling out some poor sales peon in the process for having made the "mistake."

[JackRiddler]

44. Thanks, Judy Miller!

You did a great job!

[Bluebear]

48. Which Democrat? You don't mention one??

Oh, you meant you?

[Kelly Rupert]

49. NYT didn't apologize for the ad, they apologized for the discount they gave MoveOn,

which was against policy.

[JackRiddler]

53. see post 43...

[Rex]

50. And WHO is the NYT?

They seem to apologize for a lot of shit, I can remember how it was made obvious they cover up disturbing acts by the federal government.

Kinda like AT&T, but more informative and fuzzy.

[LanternWaste]

51. it just keeps the message out there.

The more it's condemned, the more it's vilified, the more it infuriates... it just keeps the message out there. Genius.

[JackRiddler]

54. Oh, come on.

Like MoveOn planned a Senate condemnation?!

You forget, this story is keeping a second message out there: Liberal antiwar groups shouldn't question big uniformed generals. Says the U.S. Senate.

[LanternWaste]

55. I think MoveOn knew it would ruffle feathers...

I think MoveOn knew it would ruffle feathers and in doing so, reach a larger market than it would've had the message read "Petraeus is Rude".

Do I think they planned a senate condemnation? Nope. But I think it's a genius marketing strategy in the best tradition of Madison Avenue.

Don't fret, pal-- I know that the message is keeping not one, not two, but three (or more) stories in the public interest.