"Family Discount'
Interesting to see this one play out, hilarious.
I'm sure no one is going to be surprised though...
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- NYT, nice...
NYT, nice...Follow
The Post is just bitter that no one wants to pay sixty grand to advertise in their newspaper.
Incidentally, what is there to "play out"? Is there a risk that the Republicans will claim that the Times is "liberal media"? 'Cause that would be devastating.
Edited, Sep 13th 2007 12:49pm by Jophiel
Incidentally, what is there to "play out"? Is there a risk that the Republicans will claim that the Times is "liberal media"? 'Cause that would be devastating.
Edited, Sep 13th 2007 12:49pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself
He called from a payphone. Not due to any attempt to maintain his anonymity, mainly because the Post hasn't been able to pay their phones bills again this month.
He also had to ask a guy on the street for a quarter.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Hang on, Bhodi. It's important that we attack the Times here because, by this afternoon, Gbaji will have told us that he is CERTAIN that if the Post ran a discounted GOP-friendly ad, we would all be foaming at the mouth.
Actually, I have no idea what to make of this. I'd be interested in hearing a response from the Times simply because they may well have a legitimate rationale for it. Or maybe they don't. Maybe they'll blame it all on a rogue advertising department member and force him to resign. I dunno.
Actually, I have no idea what to make of this. I'd be interested in hearing a response from the Times simply because they may well have a legitimate rationale for it. Or maybe they don't. Maybe they'll blame it all on a rogue advertising department member and force him to resign. I dunno.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
It may be that the posted rate is always negotiable and rarely paid in full. Or it could be the for-profit versus non-profit number.
Or it could be a liberal-message discount. They're a private company. They can do anything they want. They could run it as an editorial, for free. It's likely clearly denoted as an advertisement.
I suspect the NYT is a publicly held company. If shareholders don't like it, sell.
On the scandal-meter, it's reading pretty low.
Or it could be a liberal-message discount. They're a private company. They can do anything they want. They could run it as an editorial, for free. It's likely clearly denoted as an advertisement.
I suspect the NYT is a publicly held company. If shareholders don't like it, sell.
On the scandal-meter, it's reading pretty low.
yossarian wrote:
They could run it as an editorial, for free.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I am more than willing to take it at face value and say 'they probably gave em a discount cause they are the liberal media'. Of course as others have stated their could be mitigating factors.
Compared to say Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or Bush appointed people using gov't funds to distribute pro gov't propaganda in the form of 'fake news' reports, it's pretty low on the list of "ZOMG corrupt media" scandals. But hey, in an era of rampant Republican homosexuality and corruption I guess you can't be too discerning when looking for a reason to point the finger at the other guys.
Compared to say Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, or Bush appointed people using gov't funds to distribute pro gov't propaganda in the form of 'fake news' reports, it's pretty low on the list of "ZOMG corrupt media" scandals. But hey, in an era of rampant Republican homosexuality and corruption I guess you can't be too discerning when looking for a reason to point the finger at the other guys.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Archfiend bodhisattva wrote:
I am more than willing to take it at face value and say 'they probably gave em a discount cause they are the liberal media'. Of course as others have stated their could be mitigating factors.
I've run advertisements in local and regional papers (never to the extent of a full page in the Times though) and how much you pay depends on if you're an established customer, a brand-new customer getting incentive discounts, what size committment you're willing to sign on to, how close it is to deadline vs. how much space they have left to fill, profit vs. non-profit organizations, how good of a negotiator you are, etc. Newspaper advertising sales is just that -- a sales job. It's not like buying batteries at Radio Shack.
So, does all that equate to a 50% discount off "list"? No clue. But I sincerely doubt that the Times was ignoring $160,000 offers to run a $60,000 ad.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Play out was more directed at the Times response.
I'm sure there will be some sort of reason for it, just thought the headline was funny.
Not expected any sort of divine revelation here.
I'm sure there will be some sort of reason for it, just thought the headline was funny.
Not expected any sort of divine revelation here.
Jophiel wrote:
... Gbaji will have told us that he is CERTAIN that if the Post ran a discounted GOP-friendly ad, we would all be foaming at the mouth.
The NY Post is a GOP-friendly ad.
Archfiend bodhisattva wrote:
Quote:
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself
He called from a payphone. Not due to any attempt to maintain his anonymity, mainly because the Post hasn't been able to pay their phones bills again this month.
He also had to ask a guy on the street for a quarter.
Christ, that was a Post reporter? I thought he was a homeless bum!
You just ruined my innocence. Now I'm suspicious of the guy panhandling every day on the Maj. Deegan - he's probably an activist raising funds for the GOP campaign!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I just stopped by to say that the title of this thread is reminding me that I need to download old-school MJ.
I want to love you
PYT
Pretty Young Thing
I want to love you
PYT
Pretty Young Thing
yossarian wrote:
Or it could be a liberal-message discount. They're a private company. They can do anything they want. They could run it as an editorial, for free. It's likely clearly denoted as an advertisement.
We're talking about a newspaper though. Of course, they're free to discount their advertising price via whatever criteria they want to. However, people are also free to point out whatever biases those decisions may reveal.
I kinda put this in the same category as the subjects of another topic we had last week about scandals. They're rarely about convincing hard core believers that "their guy" is a bad guy (or whatever). It's all about the folks in the middle who might actually believe that the NY Times isn't essentially a propaganda arm of the Left and today may question that assumption because of this.
Quote:
On the scandal-meter, it's reading pretty low.
Eh? About the same as most IMO. Not earthshaking I suppose. However, I would hope you are more concerned about whether or not one of the major news outlets in the country has a strong political bias then whether or not a member of Congress played footsie with a cop in a public restroom. One of those things actually affects the political reality (or perception of reality) nationwide. The other really has no effect on anything (unless you believe that Craig's voting record was affected by his actions).
Honestly the bigger issue is the radical position of Moveon.org in the first place. They didn't even bother to hear what Petreus had to say before calling him names. Again, it's not like the true believers are going to be shocked, but it certainly is opening a number of people's eyes as to just how blindly that group hates anything that doesn't parrot their own position on things. To put that much effort into an attack add against someone for giving a report... That's pretty "iffy", don't you think? It's one thing to bash someone for their positions after the facts are known, it's another thing entirely to simply attack anyone who says something you don't like.
At least have the respect to let the guy give his report before bashing him. IMO, that was completely uncalled for and shows just the lowbrow aspect of their entire approach to politics.
Hehe. And I'll also point out (can't find the post I said this, but it was recent) that I said something recently about how Liberal's seem most interested in political rhetoric instead of facts, especially if the rhetoric happens to rhyme... And here's moveon.org coming up with a clever rhyme instead of actually responding to the statements of Petreus. I'd say it's typical of how Liberal political thought works, but I don't think it would do any good...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
We're talking about a newspaper though. Of course, they're free to discount their advertising price via whatever criteria they want to. However, people are also free to point out whatever biases those decisions may reveal.
Find evidence that the discount was due to MoveOn.org being a liberal organization and you'll be on to something. Or just keep saying that I'm blind because it's the Times. Whichever one works.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The Seattle Times wrote:
"What we should move on with ... is a civil discourse without name-calling," Giuliani said in Atlanta, after demanding that his campaign be given the same "discounted rate" to run a pro-Petraeus ad today.
But Giuliani's facts were challenged.
Any advocacy group seeking to place a single, full-page, black-and-white ad in The New York Times on "standby" over a seven-day period — the paper picks the day — pays what MoveOn did, $64,575, sources said.
The New York Post reported that The New York Times charges a higher rate, $181,692, setting up erroneous reports that MoveOn got a "lefty" discount. But the higher price is for ads guaranteed to run on a specific day, said New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis.
By the end of the day — with Giuliani's challenge scoring huge points on conservative talk radio and Web sites — his campaign released its ad.
"These times call for statesmanship, not politicians spewing political venom," Giuliani says in his ad, just above a Web address for his campaign.
It was unclear, however, when it would run in The New York Times or how much it cost, but sources indicated it was the same $64,575 as MoveOn.org paid.
But Giuliani's facts were challenged.
Any advocacy group seeking to place a single, full-page, black-and-white ad in The New York Times on "standby" over a seven-day period — the paper picks the day — pays what MoveOn did, $64,575, sources said.
The New York Post reported that The New York Times charges a higher rate, $181,692, setting up erroneous reports that MoveOn got a "lefty" discount. But the higher price is for ads guaranteed to run on a specific day, said New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis.
By the end of the day — with Giuliani's challenge scoring huge points on conservative talk radio and Web sites — his campaign released its ad.
"These times call for statesmanship, not politicians spewing political venom," Giuliani says in his ad, just above a Web address for his campaign.
It was unclear, however, when it would run in The New York Times or how much it cost, but sources indicated it was the same $64,575 as MoveOn.org paid.
I'm just sure of it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
$100,000 discount for letting it go on any random day?
NephthysWanderer the Charming wrote:
$100,000 discount for letting it go on any random day?
As I said, the rate cut-sheets aren't worth shit once you actually begin negotiating.
Here's the Times' run with the story.
The New York Times wrote:
Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group, ran a full-page, color advertisement in The Times on Sept. 11. In a letter Thursday to its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the president of Freedom’s Watch, Bradley A. Blakeman, said: “The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000, but we could not pick the date or placement of the ad.†Mr. Blakeman said MoveOn.org must have been able to pick the date of its advertisement, or had been given “preferential treatment†on the timing, because news organizations were discussing the advertisement before it ran.
Ms. Mathis said the content of an advertisement is not reviewed before a price is quoted.
As for advance word of when a standby ad is running, she said: "Someone might say, ‘I’d like the standby rate, I’d like it to run tomorrow,’ and we say, ‘We can’t guarantee that,’ but then if we find out it is running, we let them know. If we have room, we try to accommodate them."
Ms. Mathis said the content of an advertisement is not reviewed before a price is quoted.
As for advance word of when a standby ad is running, she said: "Someone might say, ‘I’d like the standby rate, I’d like it to run tomorrow,’ and we say, ‘We can’t guarantee that,’ but then if we find out it is running, we let them know. If we have room, we try to accommodate them."
I call Conservative Media Conspiracy on this!
Edited, Sep 14th 2007 11:10am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
yossarian wrote:
Or it could be a liberal-message discount. They're a private company. They can do anything they want. They could run it as an editorial, for free. It's likely clearly denoted as an advertisement.
We're talking about a newspaper though. Of course, they're free to discount their advertising price via whatever criteria they want to. However, people are also free to point out whatever biases those decisions may reveal.
Absolutely.
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
On the scandal-meter, it's reading pretty low.
Eh? About the same as most IMO. Not earthshaking I suppose.
It's really low relative to:
War started on false/badly misleading/fictitious intel no one outside the white house could see.
DoJ arm twisting to get investigations on political opponents.
Torture.
Holding American citizens indefinitely, without charges.
Warrentless wiretapping - and violating their own rules.
Attorney General lying to congress, repeatedly.
Katrina (non) response. Bush lying as to what he knew, and when, about the extent of the damage.
President elected by a few confused Floridians who misread a ballot and voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore.
Electronic voting machines registering thousands of extra votes for Bush.
And far, far more.
Most have more direct evidence then this NYT "scandal".
gbaji wrote:
However, I would hope you are more concerned about whether or not one of the major news outlets in the country has a strong political bias then whether or not a member of Congress played footsie with a cop in a public restroom.
Uh...I don't care what Craig does with another consenting adult. Although it is a crime, I really wouldn't care less if he pirated DVDs.
gbaji wrote:
One of those things actually affects the political reality (or perception of reality) nationwide. The other really has no effect on anything (unless you believe that Craig's voting record was affected by his actions).
No. No. Both effect political reality. Craig virtually resigned from the senate. No effect? Come on, gbaji, as humorous as you normally are in your total denial of reality, this is a bit of a stretch, even for you.
yossarian wrote:
gbaji wrote:
However, I would hope you are more concerned about whether or not one of the major news outlets in the country has a strong political bias then whether or not a member of Congress played footsie with a cop in a public restroom.
You might want to take that message back to your own choir, Gbaji.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
First off, I'll note that it's awfully convenient that their ad managed to run on the exact same day that Petreus was giving his report to Congress. Sure. Maybe that reduced rate means you have no guarantee that it'll run when you want it to, but that effectively gives the paper the choice as to when it runs, which still leaves open the question of bias. When something appears in a paper can be as significant as what appears in that paper.
As to this:
Want to know what all of those have in common? They are all issues upon which you've largely formed your opinion based on how the facts were presented to you in the media. It's a laundry list of things that can easily be manipulated to appear to be something they aren't. I'd go point by point, but every single one of those are things we've debated before and which I've repeatedly argued are mostly media constructs.
I just find it funny that in a thread about potential media bias, you provide a list of topics that are themselves the result of media bias. That's not the funny bit though. The funny bit is that you likely are completely unaware of the relationship between what you believe about those things, and how you've been presented a twisted version of the facts about those things.
Edited, Sep 14th 2007 2:12pm by gbaji
As to this:
yossarian wrote:
It's really low relative to:
War started on false/badly misleading/fictitious intel no one outside the white house could see.
DoJ arm twisting to get investigations on political opponents.
Torture.
Holding American citizens indefinitely, without charges.
Warrentless wiretapping - and violating their own rules.
Attorney General lying to congress, repeatedly.
Katrina (non) response. Bush lying as to what he knew, and when, about the extent of the damage.
President elected by a few confused Floridians who misread a ballot and voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore.
Electronic voting machines registering thousands of extra votes for Bush.
War started on false/badly misleading/fictitious intel no one outside the white house could see.
DoJ arm twisting to get investigations on political opponents.
Torture.
Holding American citizens indefinitely, without charges.
Warrentless wiretapping - and violating their own rules.
Attorney General lying to congress, repeatedly.
Katrina (non) response. Bush lying as to what he knew, and when, about the extent of the damage.
President elected by a few confused Floridians who misread a ballot and voted for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore.
Electronic voting machines registering thousands of extra votes for Bush.
Want to know what all of those have in common? They are all issues upon which you've largely formed your opinion based on how the facts were presented to you in the media. It's a laundry list of things that can easily be manipulated to appear to be something they aren't. I'd go point by point, but every single one of those are things we've debated before and which I've repeatedly argued are mostly media constructs.
I just find it funny that in a thread about potential media bias, you provide a list of topics that are themselves the result of media bias. That's not the funny bit though. The funny bit is that you likely are completely unaware of the relationship between what you believe about those things, and how you've been presented a twisted version of the facts about those things.
Edited, Sep 14th 2007 2:12pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
First off, I'll note that it's awfully convenient that their ad managed to run on the exact same day that Petreus was giving his report to Congress.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 240
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (240)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- NYT, nice...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC