-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
New York Times, or New York BETRAY US??
- Thread starter APF
- Start date
- Status
Not that the ad ran itself.Don't know if this was mentioned or not, but MoveOn paid the difference ($75k?) and the NYTimes also gave the same rate to Giuliani. Not really sure what this thread is about, then. Not to mention the fact that this error was not a policy decision to give MoveOn a free pass, but simply a mistake by a cog in the machine.
Learn2read
Member
They gave Rudy Giuliani the same rate, try and keep up.bill0527 said:
Learn2read
Member
Whaaa? Huh?APF said:
What was that gibberish? What you just posted was the equivalent of a bug thrashing around in it's last throes after it'd just been squashed.
maynerd said:
That's a rather tepid counter-argument. Point to a similar ad-buy-related scandal on Fox News' account, that no one clamored about, and you might have something.
mamacint: just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's "gibberish." Also, Rudy bought an ad on standby; his campaign didn't get the same deal as moveon [on double-checking: this point isn't in his article]. Again, "try to keep up" and read the fucking article by the fucking New York fucking Times' own fucking Ombudsman.
Learn2read
Member
There's been no ad-buy-scandal because no one gives a shit.APF said:
And again, how do you explain the simple fact they gave Giuliani the same rate?
Ghengis Cohen
Banned
This doesn't seem as serious as the op made it out to be.
perryfarrell
Member
I'm with APF on this one, even though I'm a bleeding liberal.
* The ad was stupid, a smear campaign. It's like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and all the liberals were complaining about that one.
* The NYT should at least try to uphold a shred of journalistic integrity, and giving discounts to MoveOn.org doesn't help.
* What's worse, however, is that the republicans passed a bill in the senate condemning this ad. What a waste of politicians' time! They interrupt their important work to talk about a dumb ad... In other words, MoveOn supplied republicans with political ammo. T
The whole thing just lowers the quality of the political debate, which already is terribly low.
* The ad was stupid, a smear campaign. It's like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and all the liberals were complaining about that one.
* The NYT should at least try to uphold a shred of journalistic integrity, and giving discounts to MoveOn.org doesn't help.
* What's worse, however, is that the republicans passed a bill in the senate condemning this ad. What a waste of politicians' time! They interrupt their important work to talk about a dumb ad... In other words, MoveOn supplied republicans with political ammo. T
The whole thing just lowers the quality of the political debate, which already is terribly low.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
bill0527 said:
You're right-- the story of the NYT giving preferential treatment to a liberal organization *is* bigger news than Petreus' report and its factuality and relevance, and the larger issue of the war itself. To say otherwise is spin!
edit: perryferrel is right. I already equate MoveOn with Limbaugh et al, and the ad was a smear job. What's really got me going to the smear-job-defenders on the right suddenly acting offended.
adamsappel
Member
Me, too. In fact, this was one of those few times that APF's point was clear and concise from the original post, as well as being correct in both fact and interpretation. Bravo.perryfarrell said:
I don't really have a problem with the wording of the ad, it's only an "attack" ad because of the easy pun on his name. But the NYT should never have given a break on the rate.
mamacint said:
Only after all of this deal with moveon.org was discovered and they got called out on it.
People knew what happened here long before the NYT ran this article talking about it. They had no choice but to give Giuliani the same rate, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the NYT decided to run a hit-piece-by-Proxy courtesy of their friends from moveon.org day-and-date that Petreus was to give testimony to Congress and they gave them a damn near half-price discount to boot.
Had Giuliani showed up out of the blue wanting a certain ad run, at a certain time, at a discount rate, before this deal with moveon.org, ya really think he would have gotten it? In your little fantasy world, you probably do.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
The thing is, most of what Moveon.org said in the ad was factually accurate. I'll dig up the link if I can find it...perryfarrell said:
The Stealth Fox
Junior Member
adamsappel said:
Clear and concise without changing the scope of the topic or shifting his points? Someone must've stolen his account password.
I dunno why the hell people spend time smearing each other.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
twinturbo2 said:
here ya go...
moveon ad said:
Stoney Mason
Banned
bob_arctor said:
https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
Also for shits and giggles
http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/195
typhonsentra
Banned
So how do you explain away the Rudy ad then?APF said:
typhonsentra said:
After the fact when it was clear this was going to blow up in their face.
Like I said, if Rudy had gone to the NYT at any time and asked for a certain ad to run on a certain day at half-price, you think he would have gotten it before this moveon.org fiasco? Don't fucking kid yourself.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
APF said:
But Fox News does this for free!
typhonsentra
Banned
It just seems a little convenient. And seeing as how they paid the extra charge as Lonestar said, I fail to see what the big deal is.bill0527 said:
Stoney Mason: no comments about The Times betraying the public trust? Seems like, for you in particular--having made many a post inviting folks attacking Dems to use the same logic against Reps--you might want to take the opportunity to do the same for The Times...
The problem at this point isn't with moveon.org--its with The Times violating its own ethical/etc policies and the real fallout from that.typhonsentra said:
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
APF said:
What is the real fallout anyway?
Learn2read
Member
APF said:
Hmm, so moveon paid to get the ad placed within a week and they got it the next day. That sends you into spastic fit and somehow proves your suspicions that the NYT is liberal rag.
The NYT was basically the White House's stenographer in the run-up to the Iraq war and there was no story unverifable enough that they wouldn't run - they've yet to apologive for it, and you don't blink an eye.
It's too much really...
The New York Times did wrong.
That said, what did it amount to? Has it altered the course of the war? Nope. Has General Petraeus been the victim of libel? Nope. Has the image of a mainstream media outlet been tarnished more than it already is? Hell no!
This outrage is nothing but a straw man for Republicans - desperate to redirect attention away from the war itself - to swipe at. The Republicans somehow get to play the victim, even though the target of the ad is SUPPOSED to be a military man with no political offiliation or agenda (even though we know that is hardly the case.)
So rail away you GOP fanboys. Rail away until yet another one of your officials is burned for corruption or better yet exposed for being gayer than a pink cowboy hat.
In the meantime we'll all cry over a paper that sold a discount ad. Whoopie! If you watched General Petraeus give his one hour long propaganda presentation on Fox News without a single journalist cross examining him, you might wonder how much that little stunt would have cost in comparison.
That said, what did it amount to? Has it altered the course of the war? Nope. Has General Petraeus been the victim of libel? Nope. Has the image of a mainstream media outlet been tarnished more than it already is? Hell no!
This outrage is nothing but a straw man for Republicans - desperate to redirect attention away from the war itself - to swipe at. The Republicans somehow get to play the victim, even though the target of the ad is SUPPOSED to be a military man with no political offiliation or agenda (even though we know that is hardly the case.)
So rail away you GOP fanboys. Rail away until yet another one of your officials is burned for corruption or better yet exposed for being gayer than a pink cowboy hat.
In the meantime we'll all cry over a paper that sold a discount ad. Whoopie! If you watched General Petraeus give his one hour long propaganda presentation on Fox News without a single journalist cross examining him, you might wonder how much that little stunt would have cost in comparison.
More hypocritical spin from your camp (;P), plus what bill0527 said.bob_arctor said:
Dyno: you mean red herring; this is a legitimate argument, it's just not an argument over the war. For example, your post was a red herring too: we're discussing one thing, and you're trying to divert the argument to another thing. On another note, your comment about, "gayer than a pink cowboy hat" seems pretty bigoted and anachronistic to me.
Catchpenny
Member
perryfarrell said:
The Dems should've never let this bill hit the floor before introducing bills of their own to condemn the Swift Boat ads, illegal NRCC phone calls, phone-jamming in New Hampshire, race-baiting voter guides, the Playboy Harold Ford ad, and more. Just make it dissolve into partisan bickering which Americans will tune out. Republicans perfected that little trick in the past decade.
Stoney Mason
Banned
APF said:
I could make the same argument about you and Fox News where you constantly deflect any criticism but whatever.
As I said I have no problem with the ad. Stand by it 100% both on moral and factual terms. If the New York Times offered a special deal to moveon.org, however, that they won't currently uphold for other advocacy groups then that is indeed lame and deserves to be criticized.
The Senate still shouldn't be passing bills that serve as mock condemnations imo, however.
radioheadrule83
Banned
I find the potential sympathetic leaning of the New York Times far less troubling than I do the reach and influence of people like Rupert Murdoch, and News International. The very fact that politicians in the UK tread carefully as to not incur the wrath of his tabloids is sickening enough, but having had the pleasure of seeing some Fox News and having heard about his print equivilents in the US, I know that's just the tip of the iceberg. Liberal media my ass, impartiality my ass.
APF said:
You're putting words in my mouth. It has nothing to do with red herring or fish of any chromatic characteristic, it has to do with perspective. I was attempting to put into perspective the ridiculous level of outrage this incident has engendered, fuelled of course by the GOP.
As for me pointing out the closeted nature of the Republican party, should I have said "gayer than a toliet stall solicitor" instead?
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
APF said:
No spin from me. I could give a shit about what they did (but you know this already).
Dyno said:
Where? From who? Show me the outrage! Alls I see is the usual suspects talking out their ass forcing bitch-ass votes on bullshit that doesn't really matter.
ComputerNerd
Banned
twinturbo2 said:
It's sad you don't see the difference. It's one thing if a partisan says it on his own radio program.
It's another if a media outlet gives him a discount so he can place that remark in their paper.
Like someone else said, if the Post had given him a discount to say it in their paper, then that would be similar to what the NYT did.
And similarly contemptible.
bob_arctor said:
If you follow political news you will find that every Republican opportunist has made sure to speak out against it in increasingly harsh terms. Bush himself made sure to condemn the ad as 'disgusting.' Guilliani said that MoveOn should have their First Amendment rights revoked.
Plus there's the fact of the Senate vote condemning it. It's an advertisement that demanded a Senatorial response, think about that.
So yes, there has been outrage.
ComputerNerd said:
What a ridiculous thing to say! By saying "his own radio program" are you inferring that Rush opens his mouth and radio receivers across the nation just magically pick up his voice?
The MEDIA OUTLET that puts Rush's show on the air is just as guilty of pushing a partisan agenda as the NYTs is with MoveOn, worse because they continue to do it day after day after day.
Give up!
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Dyno said:
So what I said is true. The usual suspects talking out their ass forcing bitch-ass votes on bullshit that really doesn't matter. I don't even need to follow political news to know that (even though I do).
You wanna see real outrage? The Jena 6 case has got you covered.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
I hope you have a good gag reflex...bob_arctor said:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...ly-news-leads-jena-6-ignores-white-kid-beaten
adamsappel
Member
And yet, if he had written an editorial, they'd have run it for free and on the same day.bill0527 said:
Is the NYT editorial board liberal? Sure, but like mamcint said, the separate news division (the "All the News That's Fit to Print" part) regularly ran complete fucking lies on the say-so of Bush administration officials.
The Washington Post (my local paper I read every day) is supposedly "librul," and their editorial board is/was for the war, supports the surge, regularly prints op-eds from the likes of Patreus and Kissinger and run regular columns from Charles Krauthammer, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, George Will and Bob Novak, among others.
Stoney Mason
Banned
APF said:
Their bias doesn't simply extend to their "opinion" shows. It bleeds into their straight news (Although their lines blur so much it is becoming harder by the day to separate them) via framing and coverage because it comes from an executive level.
ComputerNerd
Banned
Dyno said:
I should have used the word news outlet instead of media outlet.
Talk radio stations have NEVER been the bastion of non-biased news. Their sole purpose is to be opinionated and biased. Their listeners know this.
The New York Times, outside of their columnists, are supposed to dish out news that's unbiased. They have a slew of journalists for this purpose. It's supposed to be journalism.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/journalism
writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation
Talk radio is filled with social commentators (opinionists), such as Rush Limbaugh. When you listen to his show, you know it's going to be biased.
Talk radio is held to a different standard than a journalism paper, like the NYT. Because talk radio isn't journalism. And Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc, have never called themselves journalists.
So post it in the thread you created for Fox News, and hundreds of GAFers will say, OMG THAT'S DISGUSTING OMG, and maybe I'll agree or maybe I'll try to interject something like, "that's literally the middle of a phrase clipped to make it sound like something different than they were trying to say," depending. Your digression along these lines is a weak attempt to divert the discussion from the point of this thread, which is to talk about The Times' own admitted errors in judgment that go against their own ethical policies. And your unwillingness to mount a strong criticism against it, despite your desire to see folks you disagree with do the same, when the shoe is on the other foot so to speak.Stoney Mason said:
ComputerNerd said:
Bullshit, Rush on a daily basis calls himself Americas real journalist. Hannity and O'reilly both proclaim they give the "truth" that the mainstream "liberal" media doesn't provide. Theres a reason so many Americans forgo regular news programs and newspapers and instead persist they get they're news from the likes of Hannity, Rush etc.
Stoney Mason
Banned
APF said:
Hilarious.
A.) I said they deserved to be criticized if indeed the case is as I presented it in my post. To be honest I only skimmed your original post and didn't bother to research it. Tonight is Halo night after all and I'm a bit busy preparing for that. But to repeat if it is the case then they deserved to be criticized I repeat again. Of course with criticism comes how often a bias occurs and whether it is admitted by said source. Everybody has bias in other words. The real issue is how often it occurs and what is done about it.
B.) Your the one who tried to call me out implying hypocrisy. Don't get mad at me when I point your hypocrisy back at you. I copped to the fact that if the facts are true it's a bad thing. What more do you want me to do? Picket the building? If you see more instances of NYT bias then by all means go ahead and post them on a regular basis. That is what a forum is for. Discussion.
C) I mentioned Fox because of the hypocrisy issue with you. Which is directly relevant since you wanted to call me out. The injection of it is relevant on that issue. As far as the thread subject, I already gave my opinion on that. So stop with the shoe is on the other foot crap since I call it fairly down the middle unlike some others. Ask a question and I answer without trying to hide my opinion or political leanings on the subject matter unlike some others.
ComputerNerd
Banned
Jonm1010 said:
For Rush, I'm not sure. I've never listened to his show. He's definitely not a journalist though.
For the others I've listed, they'll actually staunchly say they are not a journalist when someone accuses them of being, or acting like, one.
And it is the truth... slanted to the right
There are different thoughts on what is true or not.And it doesn't mean they are calling themselves journalists.
Stoney Mason: I only '"called you out" because you're constantly calling me--or the other non-lefty-age folks--out for alleged hypocrisies. Cycle of violence and all.
I'm still waiting for Mr. "Does it really matter what the truth is because they'll just spin their falsehoods anyway" to chime in...
I'm still waiting for Mr. "Does it really matter what the truth is because they'll just spin their falsehoods anyway" to chime in...
Whatever, GOP. Next year you'll be running so many dishonest and hard-hitting ads against Democrats; enjoy playing victim while there's downtime. But if we are to talk about the ad and how it was accepted into the paper, yes, there's room for argument there. However, they're making a huge deal out of it. OMG SOME PEOPLE THINK GENERAL PETRAEUS HAS BETRAYED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Big deal. Get over it.
Also, did I just read the GOP is voting against this ad or something? Are you kidding me? How the fuck can they sleep at night knowing they're wasting their power doing that?
I don't want to hear any more of you conservatives tell me Democrats are wasting their time. At least they're TRYING to do things that matter, even if it ultimately gets thrown out by Republicans in Congress or the President himself.
Also, did I just read the GOP is voting against this ad or something? Are you kidding me? How the fuck can they sleep at night knowing they're wasting their power doing that?
I don't want to hear any more of you conservatives tell me Democrats are wasting their time. At least they're TRYING to do things that matter, even if it ultimately gets thrown out by Republicans in Congress or the President himself.
- Status