NYT's Public Editor Says Paper Made Mistake Running MoveOn’s ‘Betray Us’ Ad

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

If you thought the controversy over MoveOn's disgraceful "General Betray Us" ad was going away any time soon, think again.

On Sunday, the Times's public editor Clark Hoyt came out strongly against the paper's decision to run this piece of detritus claiming that MoveOn got a price "that it should not have received under Times policies," and 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.'"

Hoyt expressed his disagreement with the paper early and often (emphasis added throughout, h/t Pat Campbell):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

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.

[...]

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.

[...]

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.

[...]

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.

Bravo, Clark. Bravo.

As a delicious sidebar, liberal talk radio host Lionel was on Fox News's "Fox & Friends" with conservative radio host Pat Campbell last Sunday discussing this issue (audio available here).

At the time, Lionel claimed it was a lie that MoveOn received a favorable rate for this ad.

I wonder whether Lionel will publicly admit he was wrong given Hoyt's revelations.

I for one will not be holding my breath.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

the Times admits it did

the Times admits it did wrong??? recognition is the first step of the cure

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

the Times admits it did

Recognition is the first step to denial of the bargain rate of $64,575 to any other organization that wants to run a rebuttal of this ad...

do you really think they're sorry ???

it's a half hearted attempt to gloss over their intention to do exactly what they do, cater to the moveon and liberal agenda.

but i'm just naive because someone stated that about me without any logical or reasonable explanation or justification on arriving to that idea.

lunaticcringeradio

Sorry???

who knows but this will create doubt in some people at the NYT and who read the NYT.

Naive? well if you say so

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

Where's my special broom?

You know the situation is bad when the wicked witch of the east, ends her boycott of Fox News...

Of the east?

How can you say with certainty she's from the east? She's all over the map ... on everything.

So the Times admits they did

So the Times admits they did something wrong...  I don't buy this..  1 - the decision makers haven't really admitted any errors in judgement.  2 - having their 'Public Editor' (is that like an ombudsman?) admit anything is, IMO, at best a weak-ass response and doesn't undo any damage.    

They are hopelessly anti-American and anti-ANYTHING-Bush.

The NYT apologizing?

rimsky,

I totally agree. But let's take it one step further - is this really an apology or merely an admission that "whoops, I guess we got caught!"

I just don't see the New York Terrorist making apologies for anything they print. Isn't it interesting that they waited until the damage was done before this weak-kneed, namby-pamby, twice-dead, plucked-up-by-the-roots "apology" was issued!

And they wonder why their subscription volume is in an irretrivable tailspin!

Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.

 

And they wonder why their

And they wonder why their subscription volume is in an irretrivable tailspin!

Running the ad was an attempt at appeasing Moveon.org and keeping their subscriptions.  It's their only hope.

 

rimsky...yes, Public Editor

rimsky...yes, Public Editor is pretty much the Ombudsman. And you are absolutely right: this is nothing.

They get to have their cake and eat it too. They run the ad, (an ad that's contrary to their own stated standards) after offering MoveOn.org a rate that they shouldn't have, on a specific day, when they shouldn't have, for maximum damage.

Then, over a week later, the Public Editor comes in and says "Tsk, tsk." Well, Whoop-di-freakin' doo! Now they pat themselves on the back and say: see, we're policing ourselves!

If there is EVER an apology in the Times, you can bet it will be on page B15, in the bottom corner. And it will say: it was not our intent to demean General Petraeus (HA!) and we apologize if anyone was offended.

MB, the NYT has no moral

MB, the NYT has no moral guage.  You're right, there will be no apology.  And it's total BS to say that they didn't intend to demean the General.  That's a flat out lie. And they know it.  That's what is so frustrating about this. They can print anything and if they get any flack about it, they just say, 'Oh, well we didn't intend to do this.'   

the old "I'm sorry it hurt

the old "I'm sorry it hurt your feelings" type apology?  (but if you weren't so dense it wouldn't hurt your feelings)  

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.

‘We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of...

...a personal nature."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha[Breath] HA!

I do not understand the

I do not understand the fear that Democrats show for moveon. From what I have read and heard, there are only about 3.3 million members of moveon. That is fewer than live in NYC, alone. That group makes up a very small minority of the US population. Not enough to sway any election, (i.e. Joe L.). That was their best shot, and it failed. Is it the money? Seems they could do better without moveon.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bass... I'm afraid that

bass...

I'm afraid that Moveon represents how these democrats actually think! 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

Clear, that was also what I

Clear, that was also what I heard the Hill say on Chris Wallace this morning. The way she hem hawed around the moveon ad question and her failure to condem the ad in the senate. It disturbs me that some one like that can even rise to the front of an election in the US. Let alone be elected to one of the houses of goverment. 

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Page 37J? -- Three Guesses (no cheating!)

The placement of his confessional in the NY Times was not mentioned. Three guesses:(1)front page or (2)column one top of the fold on the op-ed page or (3)buried in the legal notices on page 37J.

Not expecting a surprise, I "Googled" his statement on Google News to see just how many other worldwide media outlets picked it up. A dog can sneeze and it will be repeated in 500 newspapers if the sneeze was written up in the NY Times. A grand total of fifteen (15) reprinted Hoyt's confessional. That included Newsbusters, Fox News and a lone major daily national newspaper -- the Sioux City, Iowa Journal. The others were all right leaning on-line blogs (not newspapers) except, one odd standout - The Huffington Post. Go figure. Not even the Washington Times printed it! So you have read it, I've read it and those in Sioux City have read it. I'm relieved. Nothing beats confessing to a deaf priest to atone for your sins!

By comparison, "Bush to Veto Child Healthcare Bill" was reprinted 1,015 times including all major daily newspapers.

Alas, I was not surprised by what I found. Does the sun rise in the east?, does a bear -- oh well, 'nuff said. Business as usual.

p.s. puzzler answered: the article appeared in the Huffington Post in synopsis form (meaing no resemblance) entitled "MoveOn.Org Planning Mean Limerick About Petraeus". THP identified the writer as "Andy Borowitz is a comedian and writer whose work appears in The New Yorker and The New York Times". So change the fifteen to fourteen. BTW - Fox News TV is running this story at least every hour today so that cancels out the silence of 4754 other media outlets (the number that Google News tracks minus fifteen). Not.

Wanna bet?

"...but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake".

HA! Wanna bet on that? There was no mistake made. A sales rep doesn't make that kind of decision in a vacuum. That decision goes all the way to the top. This is such a slimey newspaper that you would probably kill any bird that you lined its cage with.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Its a crying shame that a

Its a crying shame that a bunch of Adults(?) cant tell right from wrong untill everyone in the country tells them. Whats this say for the judgement of the NYT's? No bias here.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

And then they are surprised

And then they are surprised that so many people were offended!! Bernard Goldberg said in his book that a NY liberal can go years without ever hearing an opinion contrary to his own. Also like that socialite (I forget who) that couldn't understand how Nixon got elected because "Nobody I know voted for him."

These folks really live in their ivory tower and think the whole world is that way. I love watching them stumble and do the back-door two-step when they get caught.

The New York Times stock tanked after the ad

Prior to running the ad, stock had nowhere to go but up, until some bozo proved them wrong!  This is apology is seen as pleading with your stockholders.

Numbers...

Sample Period October 2002 to September 2007:

New York Times  Oct 02  $48.41 Sept 07 $19.81  Loss of 59%

Dow J Ind. Ave.   Oct 02  8397    Sept 07  13820   Gain of 64%   

Seems to me the business plan needs work.  

The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.  ~ Unknown