September 10, 2007

At What Price?

Is there any way for us to know just how much The New York Times charged for their full page "General Betray Us" advertisement today? Did they pay full price, or did they get a special, reduced rate?

I'd like to know if advertising rates of the New York Times are determined by the political message taking up the ad space, and whether or not a discrepancy in such rates, if one exists, is something that they owe it to their readers to disclose.

Update: According to Jake Tapper at ABCNews, the ad cost approximately $65,000, running in the "A" section of the paper.

And while I don't claim to understand the intricacies of New York Times advertising sales, their own rate card (PDF) seems rather specific that Advocacy ads, which the ad most clearly was, are sold at $167,157 for a full-page, full-price nationwide ad.

nytimes ad rate

If Tapper's numbers are correct, paid just 38.89% of a full-cost, nationwide ad, or a 61.11% discount off of a full-rate ad. While I'm fairly certain that nobody pays "sticker" prices, 61% off seems a rather sweet deal.

Note: For those who can, I'd appreciate it.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at September 10, 2007 02:56 PM

I am no expert on these issues, but I wonder if an advertising fee below market rates could be construed as a contribution to the PAC and therefore require reporting to the FEC.

I doubt that the NYT would give a discounted rate even though I have no doubt that they probably fully subscribe to the sentiment behind the MoveOn ad.

Posted by: Terry at September 10, 2007 04:41 PM
Did they pay full price, or did they get a special, reduced rate?

Is this question based on any factual information at all, or is it just pot-stirring?

Posted by: nunaim at September 10, 2007 04:41 PM

An ABC article linked from Drudge says that the quislings paid $65,000 for the ad.

Posted by: wolfwalker at September 10, 2007 05:42 PM

Would it surprise anyone if the Times paid MoveOn for the ad?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at September 10, 2007 06:43 PM

To the NY Times, all advertisers are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 09:10 PM

You just cracked the big story, the New York Times is liberal and favors liberal organizations and liberal individuals!

In all seriousness, cheap shots from either sides don't do us any good at this point, but I will say the right has made their fair share of cheap shots over the years so I'm not going to break out the violin anytime over this ad and shed any tears. Did New York Times show favortism? Who cares?

The bottom line is the majority of Americans simply do not trust this administration based on their record, so reports that have ties to it lack any serious credibility to a majority of Americans.

Don't you love all these lingo terms? "The Surge!" Sounds like an energy drink!

You can occupy another man's country with 10 billion troops, but you will never win their hearts and minds. Would that work here in the USA, if we were occupied? More troops?

Posted by: John Bryan at September 10, 2007 09:12 PM

No one ever pays the rate card.

Well, let me rephrase that. Only idiots pay the full rate card. It's like the price of a hotel room that is always printed on a piece of paper behind the door in your room. The 'rack rate' is always some ridiculous figure well beyond what you paid. Same with newspaper rates.

Would be interesting to see how much others paid.

Posted by: Andrew Leyden at September 10, 2007 09:15 PM

If MoveOn got a discount, it's more likely because newspapers are dying and desperate for income.

Posted by: yk at September 10, 2007 09:16 PM

I don't know John, but it did work in Germany and Japan...

Americans do trust their generals though. Tough. Congress in the same poll has the confidence of twelve percent - is that the Americans you are speaking for?

Posted by: Kathy at September 10, 2007 09:18 PM

Andrew Leyden is correct. The rate card is the first offer which you can pay less than half of, if you play your cards right.

I will add a +1 to his "Only an idiot pays the full rate card." You guys are making much ado about nothing.

Posted by: Santiago at September 10, 2007 09:19 PM

"You can occupy another man's country with 10 billion troops, but you will never win their hearts and minds. Would that work here in the USA, if we were occupied? More troops?"

Pretty funny these lefties how they can spout empty simplistic platitudes with no connection to the situation under consideration. Just like their brains, disconnected from reality.

As for the NYT, you would think there might be one or two grown ups hanging around the editorial board who would view this add with the disdain such juvenile drivel deserves.

Posted by: ligneus at September 10, 2007 09:21 PM

Wow, John Bryan, that's some surge! 10 BILLION troops? For you're family's sake, I hope you work with your hands.

Posted by: ecs at September 10, 2007 09:52 PM

Wow, John Bryan, that's some surge! 10 BILLION troops? For you're family's sake, I hope you work with your hands.

Posted by: ecs at September 10, 2007 09:52 PM

But, he's right:

Those Washington State radio guys were (what? punished? - fined? - I don't remember exactly what) for advocating on-air for a cause - it was ruled a contribution.

So, how would a NYT discount NOT be the same?

Posted by: bobby B at September 10, 2007 10:03 PM

When it's among friendly liberals, it's not called a discount it's regarded as an incentive to defeat the enemy: conservatives.

Posted by: Schratboy at September 10, 2007 10:15 PM

Isn't it fun when you can not discuss the real issue when men and women are dying and write about ad fees? What a blogger, you get right to the issue!

Posted by: patco13 at September 10, 2007 10:29 PM

Isn't it fun, patco13, when you and can ignore the fact that "the issue" was discussed today, in full view of tens of millions of Americans, and YOU can pretend it wasn't???

Isn't it fun, patco13, when you can ignore the libel printed in the NYT attacking Petraeus's patriotism?

Isn't that what you clowns complain about all the time?

And isn't it curious, patco13, that the left bleats about "free speech" and loss of civil liberties, and yet can print such libelous, mindless trash in a formerly well-regarded nationalnewspaper now in a death spiral?

Posted by: fulldroolcup at September 10, 2007 10:41 PM

[ligneus at September 10, 2007 09:21 PM]

Ten billion troops in Iraq translates to one trooper every 42 feet in all directions from border to border. Considering that and knowing our troops, I don't think we'd be overly concerned with winning hearts and minds while outnumbering the country's population 400 to 1. The big concern would be where to stack all the soccer balls. Syria, maybe?

Posted by: Dusty at September 10, 2007 10:42 PM

Don't ya love how the lefties try (and in some cases) succeed in changing the topic away from something that sure looks to a non-newspaperman like me like (gasp) favoritism?

Imagine the lefty furor if it was discovered that FoxNews charged, say, The Heritage Foundation less for a 60-second ad than they charged MoveOn!

Posted by: C-C-G at September 10, 2007 10:46 PM

The issue is an ad discribing a four star General of the US Army as a liar by a group of insurgents financed by George Soros and The New York Times,an American newspaper, running the ad at any price. The discount if true is a declaration of support for

Posted by: Clyde Eagle at September 10, 2007 10:46 PM

"The big concern would be where to stack all the soccer balls."

That has to be the line of the night....

Posted by: notropis at September 10, 2007 10:52 PM

I'm guessing it wouldn't be nearly as inexpensive to smear an upstanding Democrat leader. Oh. Wait. There are no upstanding Democrat leaders.

Posted by: Lone Ranger at September 10, 2007 10:53 PM

What a waste of $65000.00

Posted by: Riteaidbob at September 10, 2007 11:06 PM

And all that after some media outlets refused to run ads and commercials by a group advocating for our continued presence and mission in Iraq.

It is fine with me that the NY Times runs MoveOn's ad. It's fine with me if they deeply discounted that ad.

But, when they try to point out their impartiality as journalists and someone points out that maybe that's not entirely supported by their actions, then the NY Times has very little fig leaf remaining to hide behind.

As a capitalist, I don't care if NY Times gives MoveOn a whole page for free. Just expect some questions and ridicule from some quarters.

And I wonder how the NY Times shareholders feel about them deeply discounting ad rates in favor of some groups, while share price has dropped from near $50 to about $21 in the last five years?

Posted by: John in CA at September 10, 2007 11:09 PM

Most newspapers have general advertising rates, national rates, and contract rates, which are considerably lower. If is a contract advertiser, they would get a much reduced rate. Contract advertisers are normally required to run a minimum amount of lineage on a per day, per week or per month basis. I don't read the NYT, so I don't know if they run ads on a regular basis or not. The greater the lineage, lower the rate.

Posted by: Sara at September 10, 2007 11:15 PM

You can offer discounts to anyone - but you have to offer the same discounts to everyone. I would assume it is the same for publishing as it is for wholesale.

For example - I can give you different discounts per the quantity you buy. It gets further complicated if I have a special going on (buy today and save!) So, it is easy to manipulate the system. However, theoretically, once I set up a rate, I have to offer it to anyone who comes in and qualifies for quantity and time frame. I can't just sell my product cheaper to whites than to blacks ...or cheaper to big stores who are purchasing in the SAME quantities/time frame as the little ones.

Also as in hotel rooms, you can offer different rates to different groups. Example, AAA, Government, Senior's etc.

But what is illegal is if you are offering deals to one group and refusing them to another group based on an arbitrary "I like them better".

For example, I can not offer quantites of X purchased before X to one group cheaper than another just cause I like one better than the other.

It would be impossible to prove on a one/two time basis - but a pattern would be illegal.

Posted by: Becky at September 10, 2007 11:20 PM

My guess is is not Macy's, Bloomingdales or Sacks -- regular big ticket advertisers, who either on their on or in conjunction with the brands they're marketing, are regular full-page ad buyers and should be able to garner the lowest rates for both full page ads, spot color or full color. It's unlikely MoveOn would do more than one ad a year like this, which is why the ad has become so publicized.

The question then becomes -- if the Times really did give MoveOn a discount they wouldn't normally deserve -- did their rate come in at equal or lower than the cost the Times' regular full-page advertisers are paying for their retail sales rate. If that was the case, the folks at Federated or one of the other big ad buyers might be able to play a little hardball with the paper for the upcoming Christmas shopping season.

Posted by: John at September 10, 2007 11:27 PM

Suckers would only pay the asking price on newspapers, especially one that costs that much. However, I have never seen a 61% savings on a one-time ad buy. I have seen up to 50% in extreme cases, but that is when the media entity was desperate to fill a spot that had been previously reserved, then had fallen through.

It also depends on how many ads has over the course of their contract with the NYT, if any. If you, as an advertiser, will promise to run, say 2000 column inches over the course of a year, the advertiser will get a reduced rate on column inches.

My guess is that the NYT sales rep saw the $65,000 offer was a lot better than the $0 it would have gotten for running an ad to promote NYT products or putting in actual news. The sales rep probably gets some sort of big commission out of this ad purchase. However, probably should have received no more than a 40% discount on the ad, IMO.

As for bobby B's comment about the NYT being fined for this, or considered a contribution, it won't happen. The people on the radio were punished because the airwaves are owned by the public, according to FCC rules. Newspapers are considered private entities, which is why newspapers have more freedom when it comes to this sort of thing. We can't go to the FCC and invoke the Fairness Doctrine and try to get a $65,000 ad to refute the ad. If the laws have changes, please let me know. My Communications Law class was 10 years ago.

That is why, when libs try to "Hush Rush" with the Fairness Doctrine, they might actually do it if libs and Dems control the White House and Congress. Rush has explained this on his show, and I won't go into it here.

I find the ad abhorrent, and I hope the NYT shows better judgment next time this happens (probably not). They have a right of refusing to run the ad as well as a right to run an ad. I'm not here to defend the NYT on this particular issue; just to give some insight into media buying and media laws.

Posted by: MoRepublican at September 10, 2007 11:40 PM

It hasn't hit the MSM yet, but the little dears also defaced the Vietnam Memorial with oil Friday night, permanently damaging the granite slabs. Some of the names have been rendered illegible.

The National Park Service tried to pressure-wash the stuff off today, but by the time they learned about it and came up with the plan it had sunk into the granite. Experts are saying that if steam doesn't lift it, removing the panels and steaming them in a horizontal position might help.

They also trashed the nurses' memorial statue. They couldn't get to the Three Soldiers (it's surrounded by thornbushes) but they tried.

We can sure be grateful for Markos's contribution to public discourse, and for the inspiration he is to his barbarian hordes. Although there's no proof that the vandals were inspired by him and not one of Soros's other villainous cat's paws like the HuffPo or DU.

Posted by: Kevin R.C. 'Hognose' O'Brien at September 10, 2007 11:51 PM

Mo - great info. But in this case, I don't think it would matter if they are a private co or not. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) insists that any deal that you make with one customer must be offered to all like customers.

It would be difficult to prove, for the reasons that you explained. But, given that the discount is so extreme, I can't help thinking that one could make the case that it was indeed a contribution.

Posted by: Becky at September 10, 2007 11:59 PM

Mo is correct - newspapers are a special case. They have to comply with employment laws, environmental laws, criminal laws, etc., but anything involving the content of what they publish is beyond most regulation.

Advertising enjoys less protection than unpaid content (what is loosely described as "news" in the vernacular), but the only recourse is generally the courts, using the libel laws. NYT v Sullivan set the standard fairly high even for advertising.

As far as rates go, newspapers can charge pretty much what they want. True, if large retail advertisers get wind of someone getting an undeserved discount it helps their own negotiating strength. In the NYT's case, though, their ad lineage and revenues are already under pressure, and getting even a discount rate for an extra page of advertising can seem worth whatever risk it runs to a paper in that position.

Suing newspapers has never been a dependably profitable occupation, no matter what the cause.

Posted by: Jim Addison at September 11, 2007 12:23 AM

John, you are correct so far as it goes. However, a contract advertiser may only contract for say a small 1x3 or 2x5 ad that runs regularly and make the big buy once a year or less. Wouldn't matter, if they are under the contract rate, they get that rate for the big or small. Also, there are different rate cards for retail, classified, display and specialty sections that might include things like an entire section devoted to "back to school," or "Valentines, as examples.

The ad today most likely falls under the Display rate card. These rate cards (again at most newspapers) are broken down even further into: general rates, contract rates, national rates, and if the paper puts out area/targeted editions, they might have a rate based on say a single edition to one of the boroughs, targeted to those residents.

Posted by: Sara at September 11, 2007 12:25 AM

I doubt someone from Moveon actually placed the ad. Does anyone know if they have a PR firm, because if they do, that PR/advertising firm most likely placed the ad as an agent for their client. If that is the case, the PR/advertising firm would be the contract advertiser at the Times and may have dozens of accounts they manage, all of which would give them a pretty deep discount. An advertising firm that handled several big Times' advertisers would have mucho clout with the newspaper.

Posted by: Sara at September 11, 2007 12:33 AM

I've been a media buyer for a small ad agency for the last year. I never pay rate card for half or full page, other than in certain special supplements to magazine issues. 60% off is a sweet deal, but not unprecedented, though. I've been able to get that discount for clients as well, on a number of occasions.

Print outlets can and do have different ad price structures for different clients. It's not illegal in the slightest.

Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at September 11, 2007 12:48 AM

The Times ought to give them more low cost space.

I can't think of a better way to get them to show their true colors and provide support for the Republicans.

It's a toofer.

Posted by: M. Simon at September 11, 2007 01:34 AM

Kathy - Many of the top U.S. military generals were against this war, from the beginning - that's why Rumsfeld fired so many of them.

Even those who supported it opposed the way that Bush and Rumsfeld managed the war.

So if we had "trusted our generals" earlier, perhaps the disasters of the past few years could have been averted.

And to compare Germany and Japan to Iraq is consistent with the geopolitical philosophy of liberal internationalism. It is based upon a flawed, left-wing utopian vision. Socialism doesn't work, whether it's practiced within our borders, or outside of them.

Posted by: Aakash at September 11, 2007 03:01 AM

Actually, M. Simon is only partially right. There are other benefits in addition to showing true colors and helping Republicans.

The more semi-freebies that Putz Sulzberger gives to such 'causes,' the worse it gets for NYT's bottom line, and the more its market share and stock value continue to erode. (But hey, it takes real acumen to run an institution like the NYT into the ground.)

So that's what...a threefer? fourfer?

Posted by: Clioman at September 11, 2007 06:00 AM

It should be seen as a violation of compaign contribution reporting laws, but Bush is too gutless to act, just like he will be too gutless to put Kusinich behind bars for treason.

Posted by: Spartacus at September 11, 2007 07:12 AM

This is a clear example of political prejudice cutting into corporate profitability. I smell a shareholder suit in the making.


Posted by: chsw at September 11, 2007 07:35 AM

It is unfortunate that dueling is now illegal; sure some lives were lost too soon, but it had a tendency to keep discourse within some reasonable bounds. For example, would that personage Landros have been more circumspect in his attempt to smear Petraeus if the good General could have called him out to the dew-pearled lawns of the Mall for an early morning shootout, and, when finished, have gone looking for Soros?

Posted by: Fred Beloit at September 11, 2007 08:15 AM

so the right developed and entire cable news network and a vast array of a.m. talk show hosts for the sole purpose of maligning a sitting president over a blow job, but this one ad is just way too far for the left? just another example of the faux controversialism so typical of the right.

Posted by: english teacher at September 11, 2007 08:46 AM

Well, it's obvious that they don't teach critical thinking in English classes anymore, but I'm surprised that they apparently also no longer teach spelling or capitalization.

Posted by: notropis at September 11, 2007 09:17 AM

There's a lot of misinformation posted about to what extent newspaper space rates are negotiable. They generally aren't. While broadcast rate cards are just the starting point for haggling and negotiation, newspapers generally stick to rate card rates, subject to a whole set of standard discounts newspapers offer 15% commission for advertising agencies, frequency discounts (and yes, those can be earned by running a whole bunch of small, relatively cheap placeholder ads), local-advertiser discounts, print-ready discounts, etc. But the inflexibility of newspaper space rates suggests that either someone at the Times stupidly charged the wrong category's set of rates (e.g., local retail instead of national advocacy) or that the paper's subsidization of is even more egregious.

Posted by: bruce Goldman at September 11, 2007 09:22 AM

I'm afraid the capless teacher of English has purposefully misunderstood. It was never really about the BJ. It was always about perjury.

Posted by: Fred Beloit at September 11, 2007 09:27 AM

Actually Aakash, Rumsfeld fired so many senior officers because he was tasked with cleaning up the Pentagon. Which as we all know, was a ridiculous mess of bureaucrats, and senior officers getting their tickets punched before they went private. Their mindset over there was completely cold war, and had been that way for some time. While they made some major mistakes in the run up to, and during the war, (name one war we've been involved in that did not have any), the Administration was spot on in their ideas for streamlining the Pentagon, and our military. They, of course, fought him every step of the way with targeted leaks, and innuendo. Hell Rumsfeld started his house cleaning before 9/11, but it did not start getting a lot of attention until we kicked off the Afganistan/Iraq adventures. I've always been amazed that the leftists in this country, who generally have little use for the military, will take anything said by military members as holy writ, if it fits they way they want things to be. Yet they will do or say anything to discredit a very credible military member, if his report does not fit their narrative.

Posted by: Brad at September 11, 2007 10:27 AM

John B -- Would occupation work in the U.S.? It did.

Or maybe I've just missed the ongoing insurgency in South Carolina, etc.

Posted by: TheProudDuck at September 11, 2007 12:22 PM

The question isn't how much MoveOn paid. It's why the Times ran the ad in the first place.

Posted by: km at September 11, 2007 12:41 PM

Kathy - Many of the top U.S. military generals were against this war, from the beginning - that's why Rumsfeld fired so many of them.

Even those who supported it opposed the way that Bush and Rumsfeld managed the war.

Posted by: Aakash at September 11, 2007 03:01 AM


Keep drinking that liberal kool ade!

Posted by: veritas at September 11, 2007 01:29 PM

Brad and "veritas":

"liberal" ??

To use that argument against me, on the day of the first College Republicans meeting - and especially on the day of the 9/11 anniversary, is particularly striking.

The sources I referenced, in that comment, are very conservative websites.

The division, in the Pentagon, and the Bush administration, between the military officials & generals vs. Rumsfeld & the civilians, was well known...

Even the war hawks, such as those at the conservative National Review and at the neoconservative Weekly Standard pointed this out... and responded by touting the old saying that "War is too important to be left to the generals."

No one is denying the strong divide that existed between the senior Pentagon officials & U.S. military officials vs. those such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. This divide was exemplified when Tom Clancy almost came to blows with Richard Perle, over these matters.

Tom Clancy is a staunch conservative and Reagan Republican, who has a strong following among the military community.

Richard Perle is a Scoop-Jackson Democrat.

If you looked at the bottom of that comment I posted above, you can see that I am criticizing the left-wing foreign policy principles.

"Liberal" ?

We can disagree on the issues - but if you're going to use personal insults...

Then please, please... Don't use that one!

Posted by: Aakash at September 11, 2007 02:16 PM

Not so surprising that the liberal liars at the NYT would be eager to give a discount to move on. They need something to steal the thunder from the recent surge success reports.

Posted by: deathstar at September 11, 2007 03:53 PM

"The bottom line is the majority of Americans simply do not trust this administration based on their record, so reports that have ties to it lack any serious credibility to a majority of Americans.'

And that lack of trust has been created and is promoted by the left wing media!!

Posted by: Horny Toad at September 11, 2007 11:55 PM

Aakash, on this board, and on several others where you post, your comments seem to conform more to the leftists thought processes, than they do to the conservatives. I apologize if my use of the old axiom, "if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck", mislabeled your political affiliations. As far as Clancy vs Perle is concerned, that was because of some rather uncharitable comments made by Perle about one General in particular, and not the military as a whole. I don't recall if the General was Powell, or Franks, but I do remember the incident. I do know that Clancy had nothing but respect for Rumsfeld, and what he was trying to do. Unfortunately for Rumsfeld, he was fought every step of the way by the bureaucrats in the Pentagon/DoD.

Posted by: Brad at September 12, 2007 06:29 AM

The final bill could be $0.00. The NYT Chief Financial Officer (CFO) can let the account receivable age over 120 days, continue to send out statements, and finally the CFO can write-off a portion or all of the debt deemed to be uncollectible.

Posted by: Tarawa at September 12, 2007 11:25 AM

So, what exactly is the issue here? That the NYT might have maybe kinda sort gave MoveOn a discount (although you have done nothing to prove that, and more likely they did not)? Are you so terrified of facts on the ground that you'll fill an entire page with empty supposition?

And about the NYT ad, apart from calling Patraeus "Betray Us", the ad provided a great deal of factual support for that assessment, which no doubt none of you read. Have a look at that. Do any of you contest the factual claims made in the ad? Did MoveOn lie? Or did they just reach a different conclusion than you did?

Finally, regarding the Patraeus/Betray Us pun, consider this. As the MoveOn ad and a mountain of written testimony certifies, Patraeus has been dramatically, fundamentally wrong about most every assessment he's yet provided about Iraq since 2004. Everyone knew as far back as February that in September he was going to address Congress and say that the surge is a success. Most Americans do not believe him. That is, we feel that he is not being truthful. Now, if your job is to protect the US people and Constitution, but instead you distort the truth to serve a purely partisan agenda that is damaging the country on many levels, can you not see how that could be regarded as betrayal?

Posted by: Paul at September 12, 2007 11:42 AM

I did some checking.
In 2004, the Web browser Firefox got 2,500 people to donate $30 each for a full-page ad in the Times $75,000.

Posted by: Michael Marizco at September 12, 2007 12:08 PM

Maybe for once, you slobbering morons could actually contact someone at the NYT and get them on record about this.

Maybe, but not likely, since it's more fun to sit here in your own little pity party (teh left is so mean to da general, boo hoo)

Posted by: Woody at September 12, 2007 12:27 PM

I wonder if conservatives could buy enough NYT stock to force the sacking of the editors....

Posted by: Brad Jensen at September 12, 2007 12:40 PM

we're all waiting for your detailed investigation into precisely where and how Petraeus got the numbers for his pretty graphs. without independent verification from skeptical citizen journalists like yourself (and the hordes of pseudonymous demographers and epidemiologists who follow your lead), there's no way we can know if his numbers are even as credible as the infamous Lancet report. get to work!

Posted by: cleek at September 12, 2007 02:21 PM

This is not unprecedented - I was able to get a 55% discount on ad rates for a full page ad, and later found out that I could have gotten over 60% (the publisher was a bit desperate), or 65% for paying immediately.

Posted by: Dave at September 12, 2007 02:27 PM


As a former ad exec at a newspaper and later as a contracted media buyer dealing with national accounts, I can attest that this isn't that much out of the ordinary.

Newspapers are hurting and bundled deals are extremely common. When I was working for the Sacramento Bee it was common to throw in a 'freebie' in the normal ROP (run of press) section when clients signed up for big advertising plans online or in the paper.

Furthermore, advertising and editorial are MORTAL ENEMIES in most papers. At the Bee they were on completely different floors and if you were an ad guy you didn't talk with the ed folks or vice versa. In 95% of all papers the ad and editorial divisions are separate all the way up to the publisher. No publisher, especially at a large paper like the NYT is going to care about a pathetic sum like $100k.

This is a non-story. Get over it and do some research next time before you open your mouth.

Posted by: dkellogg at September 12, 2007 03:00 PM

And while I don't claim to understand the intricacies of New York Times advertising sales...

...I will proceed to talk about it anyway as if I do.

Posted by: Xanthippas at September 12, 2007 03:04 PM


It is clear, from your last comment, that you did not even follow the link I provided, or bother to look up any information, about that "incident."

This came about due to the simmering divisions between the military leaders and generals and senior uniformed Pentagon officials (such as Colin Powell, Anthony Zinni, Norman Schwarzkopf, etc...), who were urging restraint, and expressing strong concerns about going to war against Iraq - versus the civilians, such as those in the Department of Defense and the Office of Special Plans.

In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the Department of Defense for criticism. Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a longtime advocate of the invasion.

"He was saying how [Secretary of State] Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops," Clancy said. "And I said: Look..., he's supposed to think that way. And Perle didn't agree with me on that. People like that worry me."

Tom Clancy, a staunch conservative and Reagan Republican, is against the Iraq war. In his recent book about these Iraq war issues, he and General Anthony Zinni are strongly critical of Rumsfeld and the other war supporters in the Bush adminstration.

On television interviews, Clancy has also made strong criticisms of both Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

And as for your comments about me: I have been participating in Blogosphere discussions for over five years now, and my main weblog will have its 5-year 'Blogiversary' in three days. I don't want to get into this here, but I am recognized by major national organizations, for my conservative activism, and have been recognized by Republican Party officials as well.

I come from the perspective of traditionalist conservatism... This philosophy was more prevalent, among Republican leaders, during the Clinton years - because it was much easier for conservatives and Republicans to oppose the explansion of the 'welfare-warfare' Leviathan state.

Nonetheless, many top conservatives have been expressing the same sentiments as I have, during the past several years... As I have witnessed first-hand, during our many trips to Washington, D.C., and elsehwere.

Among those organizations that have made similar assertions as I have [i.e. - your alleged "leftists thought processes"] include the American Conservative Union, the Free Congress Foundation, the Conservative Caucus, and many leaders/activists with the Leadership Institute, Young America's Foundation, Freedom Works, the Heritage Foundation, and conservative movement leaders such as William F. Buckley, Richard Vigurie, Phyllis Schlafly, and Howard Phillips.

If you look into the political-science aspects of these contemporary situations, you will find that many complex issues (such as the current Iraq war) are not about Republican vs. Democrat, or even Right vs. Left.

There are intra-movement cleavages within both sides of the ideological divide.

This fact has been recognized by both conservatives and liberals, war supporters and war opponents alike.

Clifford D. May:
Iraq war is not about just left vs. right

There is a lot more information available... Within just the past several years, in fact, entire books have been written about this very issue, by liberal hawks such as Paul Berman, Christopher Hitchens, and Peter Beinart (about why the Left must support warfare and globalism), as well as by conservative or neoconservative war supporters, and war opponents.

These liberal internationalists recognize that the reason many of their fellow leftists are not joining them in being pro-war, like they have in the past, is because of their opposition to George W. Bush. Rich Lowry, the conservative editor of National Review, refers to this as "the rise of reactionary liberalism."

For the top Democrat leaders, it also has to do with shameless political opportunism, especially around election time. I addressed this issue yesterday, and pointed out that many conservative leaders, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and David Horowitz have pointed out that many of President Bush's policies being implemented in Iraq were first advocated by the Democrats.

In the Blogosphere however, many of the strong supporters of the Iraq war, have been left-of-center; there is even a blogroll for liberal hawks.

And even your fellow conservative supporters of the Iraq war have pointed out the ideology underlying this war is consistent with left-wing and Democrat foreign policy traditions; this is true from both a historical and philosophical perspective. As for the aftermath of the war situation, they have said the same thing - this war is consistent with the leftist Wilsonian vision of liberal internationalism, something even its strong supporters have pointed out.

I don't think I should go any further into this here, as I have written about this issue, more in-depth, numerous times in the past, and as I said, there have been a number of books published in recent years, about these very topics, involving political science, and intra-movement schisms.

There are liberals and conservatives on all sides of this issue.

Posted by: Aakash at September 12, 2007 07:28 PM

Aakash, let's to keep the Greenwald-length comments to a minimum, okay? Just write a blog entry, and drop in a link.

And while I appreciate you put into this effort, you destroyed your credibility (and I quit reading) when you cited Capitol Hill Blue for your first link. I take it you are not aware that this guy has been making up stories, quotes, and sources for 20 years?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 12, 2007 07:48 PM
I wonder if conservatives could buy enough NYT stock to force the sacking of the editors....

Not likely. As I understand it, the NYT shares are set up with two classes of shares. The important shares, the voting shares I believe, are closely held by the Sulzberger family and cronies. Or something like that. Anyway, there won't be any shareholder revolts by the common shareholder.

There has been some noise made by some of NYT institutional shareholders, like one of the investment houses, maybe Goldman-Sachs. Maybe some one like that could force some changes in the NYT boardroom. But not you and me buying a hundred shares.

Posted by: John in CA at September 12, 2007 08:39 PM

Is it just me, or does Aakash bear a resemblance to your garden-variety Ron Paul supporter?

Posted by: C-C-G at September 12, 2007 09:13 PM

I had preferred not to post any more comments in this thread, but I wanted to respond to Brad's personal remarks. I probably won't be saying anything else here, as part of that dialogue (even if he does).

And I linked to only two CHB pieces... the same information was also in a variety of other sources; it was general knowledge at the time. As I noted in my first response to Brad and 'veritas' above, even pro-war conservative publications, such as National Review, pointed out the same thing. NR editor Rich Lowry said that this type of divide, between the military and civilian national leadership, "is typical in wartime."

Posted by: Aakash at September 12, 2007 09:23 PM
it was general knowledge at the time.

At one time, it was "general knowledge" that the sun went around the earth.

Does that mean that it was, or is, true?

Posted by: C-C-G at September 12, 2007 10:39 PM

Well, Bob, the NY Post picked up your story, and apparently they see something unusual about the deep discount, as well (and they ought to know something about how newspaper advertising pricing works, being in that business and all).


Posted by: notropis at September 13, 2007 10:33 AM

To those critical of GEN Patraeus - do your research on BOTH sides of the issue. He is an honorable man receiving great reviews from those who matter - the troops on the ground and the Iraqis starting to see results of his change in the US philosophy.

As for the liberal arguments, I often have a similar argument with colleagues on various issues relating to the Iraq War, Fox News, etc. But interestingly enough when I challenge them on their criticism of Fox by asking them if they actually watch it, they almost without exception say they don't waste their time. So how can their opinions be informed? Did they ever learn critical thinking? Why do you think Fox exists? It is because it reflects the opinions of a large portion of Americans who have a right to their own opinions whether you like it or not. I make an effort to watch all the networks and read all the News websites. So who knows better, someone who only watches what they agree with? Or a politician fed his opinions by his party and 20ish staffers hired for things other than their political acumen or a 4 Star career military officer? Or journalists who go to Iraq but might as well be in the US since they sit in the green zone and phone it in? Read Michael Yon and blogs from those actually on the ground. The liberal left says I am an illiterate moron because I disagree with them. I will put my experience and education against any of them. I am a retired Army Officer, a combat veteran with a disability that makes every day hurt, a son in EOD (Bomb disposal for you civilians) and a daughter in the Intel community. I speak several languages besides English, have a Master's in political science and I lived/served overseas in many places for over a dozen years...By now you might have guessed I am a supporter of the Iraq war and the Bush administration. Mistakes - some big ones - were made, but the overall goals are good and important. You are entitled to your opinion, but bring facts to the table, not things that were "common knowledge" and then we can dance.

Posted by: GraySix at September 13, 2007 02:19 PM

I've never in my life 86yr's read so much just per CRAP... What the hell do you people do to make a living ... Seems like you are all on shooting this verbal junk... Get real ,, there's a war on whether you like ity or not ....

Posted by: Tom at September 13, 2007 04:55 PM

For reasons implied above, this is likely going to be my final comment post, in this discussion thread.

The divide that existed, in the run-up to this war, between the uniformed military officials (in the Pentagon and State Department) vs. the civilian leadership, is "factual" - I provided some reference links above, but this is something that was recognized, and reported on, by all sides, including the supporters of the Iraq war... It was they, in fact, who expressed concern that the pressure from the Joint Chiefs of Staff and military leadership would dissuade President Bush from going to war against Iraq. Even many of the generals who didn't oppose going to war against Iraq were opposed to the war plans being proposed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowtiz.

War hawk Eliot Cohen wrote an entire book about this schism [from a historical perspective - but also meant to relate to the contemporary situation], and the two leading pro-war magazines on the Right, National Review and the Weekly Standard, discussed this divide as well, while repeating the old claim that: "War is too important to be left to the generals."

Regarding prior dialogues: As a life-long activist for the Right, and a nationally recognized leader in the Republican Party (and someone who has been working to directly support our current servicemembers and veterans), I frame my arguments from a traditionalist conservative perspective. The current and former U.S. military leaders I have cited, in my blog entries and comment posts about this topic, are also conservatives; some of them served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush, and several are among those who presidential candidate George W. Bush cited, as his strong supporters, in his first run for the White House.

My involvement in the conservative & GOP movements - at both the local and national levels - is one reason I nearly had a coronary when seeing the "liberal" comments from Brad and 'veritas' above, and posted that lengthy response.

If we are going to do name-calling - then please, please, please don't use that one!

Posted by: Aakash at September 13, 2007 05:15 PM

So there's a divide between "military and civilian leaders." In the words of my Critical Thinking Professor: So what? Wouldn't you expect there to be? Shouldn't there be? Isn't that why the military is under a civilian Secretary and reports to the civilian leadership of the Executive and Legislative branches? If I were President, and had a monumental decision to make, such as going to war, I would certainly hope there was a divide, and people were willing to make their opinions known.

As far as bragging about your credentials, I ask again: So what? Jimmy Carter was a State Governor and President and he's wrong about everything, including how dangerous the average cottontailed bunny is.

So, somebody wrote a book? Again: So what? Just because a book is written, we should read it and ooh and aaw over how intelligent the author is?

As far as framing your arguments? You didn't make any, you simply posted a screen and a half of name-dropping, trying to look intelligent and "connected."

Twice you said you wouldn't post again - and then did. Like Ozzy's 20th "Retirement Tour" I'll wait breathlessly for your next post...


Posted by: Robert at September 14, 2007 03:52 AM

A big waste of time to complain about some group that advocates anti-war! This is a distraction from the terrible weeks the GOP had when Larry Craig, David Vitter, Karl Rove, ALberto Gonzales, Tony Snow, Vice President Cheney, and the president had! This something that comes from Jake Tapper and John Stossel (two right wing pundits) who make a heyday of misinforming the country about a "special discount"! When it reached Murdoch's New York Post, then the Fox News memo and then to Limbaugh, John Gibson, O'Reilly and Hannity! C'mon now I am sick of this partisan distracting cause a "2/3 of Americans" want the war to be over! Do what Ron Paul says and stay out of these other countries!

Posted by: Brian Beach at September 14, 2007 08:00 AM

Sean Hannity calls his radio show the "stop Hillary Express" What's the value of his illegal campaign contributions at 3 hours a day/ 5 days a week?

Posted by: Frank Provasek at September 16, 2007 12:18 AM

I guess by now anybody who can use their brains sees that any other group who meets the same criteria as MoveOn met, can get the same rates or maybe even lower rates.
This turns out to be another far right attack based on hysteria and not facts.

Posted by: WDRussell at September 16, 2007 09:12 AM