and there she stands, naked, immodest, but unblushing...yet sagging, unsightly, gray indeed... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin [rquoter] September 23, 2007 THE PUBLIC EDITOR Betraying Its Own Best Interests By CLARK HOYT FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq. But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to. On Monday, Sept. 10, the day that Gen. David H. Petraeus came before Congress to warn against a rapid withdrawal of troops, The Times carried a full-page ad attacking his truthfulness. Under the provocative headline “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” the ad, purchased by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, charged that the highly decorated Petraeus was “constantly at war with the facts” in giving upbeat assessments of progress and refusing to acknowledge that Iraq is “mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.” “Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us,” MoveOn.org declared. The ad infuriated conservatives, dismayed many Democrats and ignited charges that the liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org with a steep discount in the price paid to publish its message, which might amount to an illegal contribution to a political action committee. In more than 4,000 e-mail messages, people around the country raged at The Times with words like “despicable,” “disgrace” and “treason.” President George W. Bush called the ad “disgusting.” The Senate, controlled by Democrats, voted overwhelmingly to condemn the ad. Vice President Dick Cheney said the charges in the ad, “provided at subsidized rates in The New York Times” were “an outrage.” Thomas Davis III, a Republican congressman from Virginia, demanded a House investigation. The American Conservative Union filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission against MoveOn.org and The New York Times Company. FreedomsWatch.org, a group recently formed to support the war, asked me to investigate because it said it wasn’t offered the same terms for a response ad that MoveOn.org got. Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse? The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake. The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print. By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the “liberal media.” How did this happen? Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, told me that his group called The Times on the Friday before Petraeus’s appearance on Capitol Hill and asked for a rush ad in Monday’s paper. He said The Times called back and “told us there was room Monday, and it would cost $65,000.” Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said. Advertisers who get standby rates aren’t guaranteed what day their ad will appear, only that it will be in the paper within seven days. Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, “We made a mistake.” She said the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then. She added, “That was contrary to our policies.” Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of its parent company, declined to name the salesperson or to say whether disciplinary action would be taken. Jespersen, director of advertising acceptability, reviewed the ad and approved it. He said the question mark after the headline figured in his decision. The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially. Jespersen has rejected an ad from the National Right to Life Committee, not, he said, because of its message but because it pictured aborted fetuses. He also rejected an ad from MoveOn.org that contained a doctored photograph of Cheney. The photo was replaced, and the ad ran. Sulzberger, who said he wasn’t aware of MoveOn.org’s latest ad until it appeared in the paper, said: “If we’re going to err, it’s better to err on the side of more political dialogue. ... Perhaps we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice to people.” For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if it’s abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues. For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in Jespersen’s shoes, I’d have demanded changes to eliminate “Betray Us,” a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier. In the fallout from the ad, Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican presidential candidate, demanded space in the following Friday’s Times to answer MoveOn.org. He got it — and at the same $64,575 rate that MoveOn.org paid. Bradley A. Blakeman, former deputy assistant to President Bush for appointments and scheduling and the head of FreedomsWatch.org, said his group wanted to run its own reply ad last Monday and was quoted the $64,575 rate on a standby basis. The ad wasn’t placed, he said, because the newspaper wouldn’t guarantee him the day or a position in the first section. Sulzberger said all advocacy ads normally run in the first section. Mathis said that since the controversy began, the newspaper’s advertising staff has been told it must adhere consistently to its pricing policies. The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.[[/rquoter]
Give the times credit for finally admiting it's error. But really Moveon.org is just a perfect example of what I have been saying here on this very board. There are these liberal fanatics that love to attack people on a personal nature just for stating something they don't agree with. Patraeus has been given high esteem by even Hillary Clinton. The democratic senate even found this ad disturning. Groups like Moveon.org are really, truly, the same sort of extremist and funamentalist thinking we see with the extreme right-wing, right to life, and even islamic fundamentalist groups.
There are certified idiots on both the liberal and conservative extremes, but ... The WH sent Petraeus to the hill to testify, on Septmeber 10th and 11th. Clearly a partisan decision on their part. Petraeus announces that the opinions are his own and then proceeds to mouth all of the WH talking points. Repeating talking points is only a problem when they are clearly cherry picked from the facts on the ground. The surge is not working and to say otherwise should draw grave concern. Attacking the integrity of a commanding general in a war arena is debatably bad. But this is a situation that calls for it.
Petraeus was chosen to be the spokesman for this part of the war by the whitehouse. He's obviously fair game for criticism and political tactics. He's fair game because the President made him fair game. That being said Moveon.Org's meathanded attack wasn't the best, and even the President of Moveon.org has said as much.
Plus MoveOn paid the difference in the ad buy. Will JulieAnnie? <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9FJJDV0gVh0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9FJJDV0gVh0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Disagreement and debate over policies is healthy for any democracy. We should never fear dissent nor discourage it -- but attack ideas, policies and actions and not the person or persons behind them. I am beginning to believe that we need to extend the hate crimes laws to organizations like MoveOn.Org just as we have with organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. I am saddened with the personal vilification of an elected President. There are times I agree with him and times I don't. But neither Bush nor Clinton nor the elder Bush nor Reagan nor Carter etc. etc. is the Great Satan. They are (or were) men with ideas and courses of action, right or wrong. But they were elected by a majority of the people. We have to live with that, and that is why we have survived and prospered as a nation. I have friends -- close friends -- with whom I debate politics from diametrically opposed viewpoints. Our politics probably will never change, but then neither will our friendship because I do not view them with less value than the friends who agree with me. So...I give you those thoughts to give you a perspective and rationale for why I believe we need the threat of hate crime prosecution to encourage free speech by all rather than allow political bullies, left or right, to inhibit it.
FEC complaint alleges Rudy got 'soft money' from NYT Nick Juliano Published: Tuesday September 25, 2007 Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign effectively received an illegal "soft money" contribution of more than $77,000 from the New York Times when he purchased a newspaper advertisement for a discounted rate, alleges a liberal blogger in a complaint to the Federal Election Commission. The formal FEC complaint from blogger Lane Hudson alleges Giuliani received a "corporate soft money contribution in excess" of campaign finance limits. It is the latest fallout from MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad, which ran in the New York Times Sept. 10. Hudson's salvo against one of the ad's harshest critics came a day after the Times finally acknowledged it had charged MoveOn a discounted rate for the ad, in violation of the paper's policies. The ad ran on the first day of Gen. David Petraeus's congressional testimony. Four days later, Giuliani took out his own ad in the Times attacking MoveOn and attempting to link the liberal anti-war group with prominent Democrats. The former New York mayor demanded the same rate the Times charged MoveOn, $64,575. Since the pricing discrepancy was revealed Sunday, MoveOn has said it will wire the Times the difference between the rate it was charged, which is meant for ads that can run on any day anywhere in the paper, and the $142,083 the group should have paid to guarantee its full-page ad would run that Monday. Giuliani's campaign has refused to make up the difference, in violation of federal law, Hudson alleges. "According to the New York Times' own policy, Mr. Giuliani should have paid the fixed-date rate instead of the standby rate," Hudson writes in his FEC complaint. "Therefore, the difference, $77,083 is an in-kind corporate contribution, which far exceeds the limits allowed by law." Giuliani's campaign did not immediately return RAW STORY's call requesting comment. http://rawstory.com//news/2007/FEC_complaint_alleges_Rudy_got_soft_0925.html
These conservatives who were sooo offended by this, are they the same ones who attacked / mocked Kerry's war record?
So you are saying it's ok, and the next times conservatives say, go after someone who's not a political candidate and just attack their character - then you are saying that's ok right? Because you can't have it both ways.
True, but once Bush decided to make Petraeus the spokesman for this part of the war, then political attacks on him became fair play. If Bush puts him front and center, then of course questioning him is fair game.
Hum.... Seems MoveOn might have had a point afterall. -- Numbers used by Gen. David H. Petraeus in his recent testimony to Congress differ from figures in the Pentagon's latest quarterly report on Iraq. Petraeus Statistics Analyzed; "Apparent Contradictions Are Relatively Easy To Find" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401929.html
Statement by Eli Pariser, Executive Director, MoveOn.org Political Action in Response to House Vote on its Ad on General Petraeus' Testimony “With every passing day, more information comes to light casting more and more doubt on the validity of the facts and conclusions presented by General Petraeus in his testimony before Congress. [See news stories below.] With every passing day, more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians lose their lives in this unwinnable civil war. It is unconscionable and outrageous that instead of doing the people's work and ending this war, Congress chooses meaningless and distracting gestures. With every passing day, America's frustration with politicians in Washington drops the approval ratings for this Congress to new lows. Congress is fiddling with an ad while Iraq burns. We will continue our ad campaign to accuse the Republicans who are blocking an end to the war of a 'Betrayal of Trust.'” _______________________________________________________________ “Petraeus’s numbers differ substantially from the Pentagon’s own numbers – his show progress, and theirs don’t. The Pentagon’s numbers are the official MNF-I numbers, which Petraeus himself called the most reliable possible. Petraeus’ numbers differ, the military says, because he includes reports from Iraqi police – the same police the NIE said are corrupt, riddled with sectarianism, and ought to be disbanded. The actual Iraqi government numbers are nowhere near as positive.” Washington Post, Tuesday, September 25, 2007 The NYT reported today that Sunni extremists are targeting Iraqi police and officials. This is a new trend in violence – but according to the methodology MNF-I released last week, none of these murders would have been counted by Petraeus. New York Times, Wednesday, September 26, 2007 http://moveon.org/
President Bill Clinton rips the Republicans over their hypocrisy in condemning the ad. Check this out... (if anyone can show the video so you can see it like it is on CNN's web page, please do) http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/09/26/sot.bill.clinton.controversy.cnn D&D. Impeach Goofus and His Buddy.
david obey and 145 other democratic members of congress disagree with him. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll910.xml
