Comments on: Moving on on MoveOn

By: CaptiousNut

CaptiousNut — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:25:47 +0000

Jeff,

You going to update this post after the Times recent confession of guilt? Going to change your characterization of “good explanation’?

By: CaptiousNut

CaptiousNut — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:53:24 +0000

Great work old maltese! My profound apathy prevents me from actually reading the tripe.

When people lie to themselves so much, lying to the world is but a tiny incremental step…

By: old maltese

old maltese — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:07:07 +0000

It sounds reasonable on the surface: stand-by ad at stand-by rate.

But the ad’s text says:

‘Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.’

So didn’t they *know* that it would run on the specific day of Gen. Petraeus’s first day of testimony?

Maybe the Times did promise them the day, instead of accepting it as a stand-by.

By: Outside The Beltway | OTB

Outside The Beltway | OTB — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:39:14 +0000

MoveOn ‘Betray Us’ Ad Got Standby Discount…

Via Jeff Jarvis, I see that the NYT has explained why MoveOn’s infamous “Betray Us” ad got such a big discount over the regular rates:
Within the category of political or advocacy advertising it is common practice throughout the newsp…

By: Brian O'Connell

Brian O'Connell — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:45:17 +0000

The NYT has no First Amendment responsibility for openness. To claim that would elevate them to some kind of steward of our free speech, which I reject. The claim also sounds like a version of the Fairness Doctrine, whose former legal mandatoriness is a strange concept for a newspaper to impose upon itself.

Sure, they can have a policy to publish opposing or extreme views, but it’s nothing to do with the 1A. The policy is completely voluntary on their part- there’s no legal obligation, which seems to be implied here.

Conversely, there shouldn’t be any legal consequences for the NYT even if they had a policy to print all Democratic ads for free. The fact that some have mentioned that a discount for MoveOn might open the Times to some legal hassles based on FEC regs just shows how unconstitutional and chilling of speech those regs are.

By: jon burg

jon burg — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:09:48 +0000

At what point do you believe groups like MoveOn.org are no longer grass roots efforts but mainstream or a new category of advocacy or even special interest groups?

By: Wayne

Wayne — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:19:31 +0000

And if say Group X would have wanted to take out an anti-Hillery ad it never would have happened.
NYT do not wonder why your readership is going down