NYT continues slide into irrelevancy
The stock of the New York Times (NYT) slipped to a ten year low yesterday as the share price follows their journalistic integrity's steep decline. The newspaper company is facing declining circulation and reduced advertising income for a couple reasons. First, in my opinion, no decent American would be caught carrying that rag and secondly businesses have to be leery of being associated with an organization so committed to working against our country. Here is the latest example. Several paragraphs into a New York Post article regarding Sen. Hillary Clinton's behavior during senate hearings, they note that the Times not only agreed to publish Moveon.org's disgusting attack against General Petraeus but they actually gave them a discount rate for the full page ad.
Meanwhile, the Times' own complicity in the despicable slur turns out to be even worse than imagined: Not only did the newspaper agree to run the libel, it apparently subsidized the hard-left sewer rats who wrote it.OUCH.
To the tune of more than $116,000.
MoveOn yesterday confirmed that it paid just $65,000 for the full-page missive - compared to what a Times spokesman said is usually $181,000 for such ads.
So, we wonder: Will the Times report the $116,000 difference as an in-kind contribution to the Democratic National Committee - or to Hillary herself?
Labels: NYT, Politics - 2008 election
posted by LargeBill at 9:03 AM
9 Comments:
Ummm...when will you post your correction regarding the supposed "reduced" rate the NYT offered to MoveOn.org? It has been widely reported that they were simply given the normal "late placement" rates given to ANYONE, the same rates they gave Rudy Gee when he bought a full-page advocacy ad.
Your arguments would be a lot more persuasive if they were more complete and factual.
6:12 PM
"Ummm...when will you post your correction regarding the supposed "reduced" rate the NYT offered to MoveOn.org?"
When I'm foolish enough to believe their explanation.
6:39 PM
...foolish enough to believe their explanation.
Do you believe the explanation on the reasons for going to war in Iraq?
6:50 PM
"Do you believe the explanation on the reasons for going to war in Iraq?"
Yes, more than I'd believe anything coming from the New York Times.
However, to help you out I'll review the reasons to go to war.
Step 1. Iraq invaded Kuwait
Step 2. Coalition (mainly US) kicked Iraq out of Kuwait.
Step 3. Iraq agreed to peace treaty.
Step 4. Iraq violated the peace treaty hundreds of times in the years following the Gulf War including firing at our planes enforcing no fly zones.
Step 5. After lots of UN warnings about non-compliance with sanctions and weapons inspectors, we gave them an ultimatum. They blew off the ultimatum thinking we were bluffing.
Step 6. We weren't bluffing.
The thought that Iraq under Saddam may provide WMD to terrorists was a primary reason to act. After 9/11 it would have been irresponsible not to deal with that threat before it reached the point of them hitting a US city with something ugly. If you can't understand that I don't think I can help you any further.
7:14 PM
Is it possible that you got some of this from the NYT?
7:32 PM
Now that is funny. No, I wouldn't accept anything from that rag without double and triple checking with other sources. However, back to your original question, NYT seems to be admitting they erred.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-23-2007/0004668013&EDATE=
7:47 PM
"Now that is funny. No, I wouldn't accept anything from that rag..."
"NYT seems to be admitting they erred."
Can you reconcile these two statements?
8:27 PM
Anon,
Your first name wouldn't be Pinch, would it? :-)
Saying I don't find them to be a very credible news source and recognizing when they admit a mistake are not mutually exclusive.
4:28 AM
"I wouldn't accept anything"
"recognizing when they admit a mistake"
Are these two statements mutually exclusive?
9:12 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home