Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Who Really Wears the Pants in Russia?
- Malia Obama – Budding Fashionista?
- The Very Latest on the US-Russian Summit
- President Obama Seeks to Build Up Medvedev Over Putin
- President Obama's Proverbial Reset Button
- The Latest from the US-Russian Summit
- Kenya Dig It? President Obama Talks Africa, Chastises Politics in Late Father's Homeland
- US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty
- Asked What He Doesn’t Like About Himself, President Obama Cites His Golf Game
- Today's Q's For O's White House
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Does Ideology Matter in NYT ads?
September 13, 2007 10:10 AM
After I reported earlier in the week on the controversy surrounding the MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times (LINK), some conservative bloggers seized upon my reporting that MoveOn.org claims to have paid about $65,000 for the full-page ad.
Many speculate (LINK) this represents a dramatic discount of normal ad rates, and today the New York Post (LINK) repeats the charge.
New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis tells me that it's Times policy to not "disclose the rate that any one advertiser pays for an ad. The rate that is charged for an ad will depend on a variety of factors including how frequently the advertiser advertises with us, the day of the week, is it color, is it black and white, what section it appears, all of those kinds of things."
Mathis says the newspaper tries "to keep our advertising columns as open as possible" and "there are many instances when we've published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance that we take on our own editorial pages." As an example of how the Times is open to all points of view in advertisers, Mathis points out that on September 11, 2007, "we published a full-page advertisement from Freedom'sWatch.org, an organization whose view is opposite of MoveOn.org."
Freedom's Watch spokesman Matt David, however tells me the group was charged "significantly more" than MoveOn.org for its ad. The organization says it plans to run a response to the MoveOn.org NYT ad in the Times, "and we plan to demand the same ad rate they paid," David says.
Some other odds and ends…
An Iraq official tells a British newspaper that Gen. David Petraeus expressed an interest in some day running for President (LINK)...
Here's our ABC News shuffle podcast interview with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (LINK), who chats about abortion, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, his campaign and the Club for Growth.
Have been meaning to post this interview I did on the Dennis Miller Show last week (LINK)…
To the tribesmen and women out there, Happy New Year. To all others, Happy Thursday.
-- jpt
UPDATE: Rudy Giuliani today demanded an equal ad rate, too. Read more from ABC News' Sunlen Miller HERE.
September 13, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (37)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Why the debate over such minutia.
Everybody knows the Times is as hard-left as they come.
There biggest difference between the NYTimes and the National Enquirer is that the Enquirer bases some its stories on the facts.
Posted by: notafool | Sep 21, 2008 8:18:53 PM
BA - so 100,000+ for color Please!
Also the NYT said th=at because they were not requested a certain day it was cheaper, but funny that it showed on the day Moveon wanted it to.
Please the NYT is in bed with Moveon which owns the new Democratic/Lib /socialist party.
Why can't the libs admit it! show some integrity. sorry i guess you need some to show it!
Posted by: spock | Sep 17, 2007 11:30:35 AM
How very, very, very strange. I left a comment yesterday about this post, my comment appeared, but now it is missing! Why would that be? I will try once again to suggest an explanation for the disparity in price. I pointed out that the Freedom Watch ad incorporated color; the MoveOn was black and white. Hence, the difference in price.
Posted by: BA | Sep 15, 2007 7:28:53 PM
GOd help us if any of the Libs win especially Obama or Edwards, at least Bill will keep Hilary in line.
Go Rudy and Thompson !!
Posted by: spock | Sep 14, 2007 10:19:02 AM
Go Obama! I really hope he wins the 2008 election. He'll be a much better president than george bush
Posted by: kioki25 | Sep 13, 2007 8:01:21 PM
The NY Times is the only paper that has been losing subscribers the last 5 year ever quarter. I wonder why, maybe because they fall in the category off "liberal media lies"
Posted by: brian | Sep 13, 2007 11:18:45 AM
Brian, the Times is not the only newspaper to lose money, and subscribers. The Sarasota, Fl. Herald Tribune, which is owned by the Times, has seen its bottom line shrink. (Boo hoo, it breaks my heart). They have had to cut features, shrink the paper and lay off employees. Needless to say it is a liberal, left leaning publication just like its parent.
Posted by: jorind | Sep 13, 2007 6:09:58 PM
The radical liberal left has struck again. So what is new? It isn't the first nor the last time this will occur. The Conservatives and Middle of the Roader's must continue to be ever vigilant against their diatribes and anti-Americanism.
Posted by: jorind | Sep 13, 2007 4:45:10 PM
Discount? 'Natch.
Posted by: Chas | Sep 13, 2007 4:21:46 PM
Conservatives don't need a discount, they can run radio talk show with out going bankrupt or public funding.
You Liberals antiquate your selves with some really funky people...Too funny
Posted by: Freddie | Sep 13, 2007 4:00:29 PM
Has anyone looked to see if conservative-leaning newspapers give discounts ad rates to conservative-leaning groups?
Posted by: Laura | Sep 13, 2007 3:38:15 PM
The Times could not be fair on anything. Don;t you know who runs the paper????
Posted by: margie | Sep 13, 2007 3:36:45 PM
Why do we expect anything resembling equality from the New York Times? We should be used to their usual extremely liberal lying. Good luck to Rudy trying to get an ad at the same rate as the move on mob.
Posted by: Arlene | Sep 13, 2007 3:28:52 PM
Discount?
Posted by: Chas | Sep 13, 2007 3:18:54 PM
Just think Hilary, Obama, Edwards and the rest are puppets of MoveOn..... back stabing a high ranking officer that has served our country with hte highest honor.....Traitors... and who knows General Patraeus might be a democrate...
Posted by: Freddie | Sep 13, 2007 3:09:04 PM
You are blinded by misguided patriotism, just as your leader is.
Posted by: BLOODY-BUSH | Sep 13, 2007 3:08:39 PM
BLOODY-BUSH - I guess you say Patriots of Al-Qeada should get discounts, since they definately are not supporters of America, see the General they libeled and insulted is a True American Patriot Hero.
But this is the paper that tells our enemy military secrets.
What are you libs going to do if these Islamic Terrorists win, since you are the ones they hate the most due to the immorality of the libs.
Posted by: spock | Sep 13, 2007 2:57:34 PM
I guess this is ok with the dems and libs. Where is the investigation? Where is the outrage? Oh, i see, i understand. this cant be true, only repubs lie!
Posted by: No2demosandlibs | Sep 13, 2007 2:54:19 PM
Jordan - a 100,000$ difference, What a bunch horse manuer. Why don't the NYT just state they will print the news as the Libs seem fit to print!!
All the paper shows is that it is a Left Wing propaganda tool.
Boycott The NYT!!!
Posted by: spock | Sep 13, 2007 2:49:30 PM
Of course the conservative group had a higher rate. They advertised in the NEW YORK Times on SEPTEMBER 11. Obviously getting a full page ad on September 11th in a paper based in New York City is going to cost more than whenever Moveon got theirs. Doh.
Posted by: Jordan | Sep 13, 2007 2:35:31 PM
Of course we know who the democrats are in the pocket of.
Posted by: cbeargal65 | Sep 13, 2007 2:00:18 PM
Post a comment
