NYT Public Editor: MoveOn.org ad violated paper’s standards
Steve Safran September 23rd, 2007
New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt writes in Sunday’s Times that the MoveOn.org ad that ran in the paper and was critical of Gen. David Petraeus “violated the paper’s own written standards.” You know the ad - it’s the instantly famous one with the headline “General Petraeus or General Betray-Us?” (Get it? It rhymes.) Further, Hoyt says, MoveOn paid less than half what the paper should have charged for the full-page ad:
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.
According to CNN, MoveOn has now paid the full $142,083 amount. As for the editorial content of the ad, the Times’s director of advertising acceptability (love the title) approved it: “He said the question mark after the headline figured in his decision.” Hoyt writes.
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.
10 Comments Add your own
1. Aaron | September 23rd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
First, that a newspaper ad three weeks ago is the big controversy, not the war, suggests a political media usurped by cable news bombast, rally-the-base presidential rhetoric and grandstanding senators.
Second, generals are not soldiers. They are commissioned officers. Soldiers are NCO’s.
Third, commissioned officers are not above criticism. Harsh criticism. His own soldiers called him Betraeus dating back to when he was a Colonel, according to military forum posts dated years ago. His own boss called him an “*ss-kissing little chickens**t” for being a sycophant obsequious to Bush. Would I have called him “General Betray-us?” No, because it’s a weak pun — I would have stuck to the substance of the ad, which was just news quotes. But not because saying “General Betray-us” is troop-hating or worth three full weeks of the news cycle.
2. ! | September 23rd, 2007 at 6:21 pm
perhaps they would have prefered moveon call him General Asteamingpile.
i think that’s what bush called the ISG’s findings
3. Alvin, Kapolei, HI | September 23rd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
What is being missed is the GOP/Bush hiding behind the military all of the time. This is not the General’s war as Bush as repeatedly stated. This is the GOP/Bush’s war and they are doing anything they can to deflect the issue about Iraq and them not meeting the major changes they were supposed to implement. Why doesn’t the news media report how ‘brave the GOP/Bush are by trying to deflect the war to the military. I can remember when the liars stated the Iraqis were going to have ten brigades ready to fight the insurgency and how the insurgency was in the last days of its fighting capabilities. Then the GOP/Bush wonder why no one believes them when the say the war is going according to plan. The GOP and Bush, dumb and dumber is what the ticket should be for them next year.
4. Jeremiah | September 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Can I get my money back for all the editions that printed Judith Miller’s “work?”
I guess it’s OVERT propaganda the NYT has a problem with….
5. Steve Boriss | September 24th, 2007 at 4:59 am
The problem is neither that the NYT discounted the ad to MoveOn.org, nor that the ad was a personal attack. The NYT is a private business protected by the first amendment and can charge and print whatever it wants. The problem is that the Times (and everyone else) misrepresents itself as an “objective” newspaper, when there is no such thing nor should there be. After a century of fooling ourselves about this, we are about to move back into a time of partisan news outlets. And, it’s about time. (Steve Boriss, TheFutureOfNews.com)
6. Aaron | September 24th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Boriss, name me one major issue NYT has taken a consistent position on, from its articles to its editorials.
7. Steve Boriss | September 24th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Aaron, The NY Times consistently selects stories that make the Bush administration look bad, which is their right.
8. Screamerina | September 24th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Are the Sulzbergers perhaps looking to sell to Mr Murdoch?
9. Mike G | September 24th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Trying to tiptoeing around the minefield here… My only question is did this change their classification of the Giuliani response?
10. Aaron | September 25th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, Boriss, I had forgotten I had a question open so I didn’t re-read the thread. Reading the paper recently, I’ve seen headlines like “Bush emerges as budget warrior” (passed off as a news piece), today there’s straight reporting like “Bush Announces Tighter Sanctions on Myanmar,” etc. If you think polls are a decent reflection of what people think, then making the Bush administration look good might be a difficult task, but I think it’s ignorant to say, “The NY Times consistently selects stories that make the Bush administration look bad.”
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed