Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Giuliani demands a full-page ad in The New York Times with Moveon.org's 77 percent discount   (thehill.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

1036 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Sep 2007 at 10:39 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-09-13 11:38:04 PM  
Where does this 77% number come from?
 
2007-09-13 11:42:01 PM  
As for 'equal time', from a Federal perspective this mostly stemmed from a defensive interpretation of the Fairness Doctrine which limited individual stations' ability to consistently portray just one viewpoint. The Fairness Doctrine is dead, and therefore not particularly relevant to what a network can do today.
 
2007-09-13 11:42:21 PM  
I guess the NYTimes must have a bias for Firefox as well. $75,000 for a two-page spread in the A section.

http://www.news.com/Firefox+smashes+funding+target/2100-1032_3-5422785​.html
 
2007-09-13 11:43:23 PM  
He should pay 81.8% of the full price... or, in fraction form, 9/11.
 
2007-09-13 11:44:36 PM  
colovion: Dinki: He can biatch and whine all he wants he isn't getting elected.

Ever hear the saying "history repeats itself?"

All of you liberals who are certain that no Republican can win should look at the 1972 election. During a war where 50,000 were dead, which was less popular than the current war and with a deadpan Republican running against the McGovernite line... the Republicans won in a LANDSLIDE.

Americans may not like war, however they absolutely HATE surrender. I wouldn't count your votes before they're cast libs.

I'm just worried that all of you may go and start jumping off of tall buildings if this happens. Not only do I not want to see mass suicides, even if it were by liberals, but that would be a LOT of paperwork for us poor schlubs in law enforcement. The pain and suffering we'd have from carpal tunnel due to all that paperwork is too terrible to imagine! So please have a rational plan for the very real possibility that history does repeat itself.

I warn because I care. I promise not to rub it in if it happens if that will ease your suffering. I hear France is a great place to flee to for liberals, you may want to keep that in mind. One year is plenty of time to get a basic understanding of the French language eh!


To be fair Eagleton (crazy farkhead) and good ole Robert Novack screwed up any chance McGovern had. Read "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" by Hunter S. Thompson. It's also funny how you use Nixon's failed term as a benchmark for how this election might go.
 
2007-09-13 11:45:04 PM  
Yagottabechittinme :


I keep hitting YES and nothing happens ..


..AHHHHHH !!! Please make it work !!
 
2007-09-13 11:45:58 PM  
...or, perhaps, I should have done some more checking and noticed the 'equal time' FCC rule, Section 315, modulo certain exempt formats.

/Mea culpa, in this case.
 
2007-09-13 11:46:50 PM  
Do the extremists on the right seriously think the NYT ad-sales department is in league with the OpEd department? I know you guys like to go on and on about a slant in the coverage which I'm willing to believe as the majority of well educated people, ie the journalists, tend to be liberal and it surely seeps into their coverage. However, if it was a profound conspiracy to slant the news I bet you would find some memos coming from the top saying to do it. How long has Fox News been around and those kinds of memos have leaked out how many times?

Discounts are fairly common. A long term relationship, future ad buys, black and white, a controversial ad that will gin up publicity for the paper... is that worth a 77% discount? I don't know either way but neither does anyone else. Some dipshiat came up with a theory and you dumb farks ran with it without any proof. NONE. the farking New York Post did a "story" on it with the same lack odf facts.

Move on can put out an offensive, ridiculous ad like this because of the tone of politics today. This is the norm. And why? Cause you partisan farks on both sides perpetrate it; you farking eat it up. I hope it really makes you happy to be so pissed off all the time cause you really make complete asses of yourselves and disgust the rest of us while yo-u do it.
 
2007-09-13 11:50:21 PM  
America's Mayor, begging for a handout. Pathetic. Someone kick him in the "nuts" please
 
2007-09-13 11:50:39 PM  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR200​7​032802174. html

...and it does look like the equal-time might nix broadcast of L&O episodes featuring Sen. Thompson, as the alternative would to offer an equal amount of screen time at the same rate to the Senator's competition (any competition that's attained ballot access, that is).

News programs are exempt, but entertainment -- not so. News 'interviews' are exempt...
 
2007-09-13 11:50:57 PM  
For what elected position is the good General running?
 
2007-09-13 11:55:04 PM  
Korovyov: GWLush:
I see but they weren't actually donating to a committee of the DNC. They were buying Ad Space in a newspaper. I am still not getting it.

Committee includes political action committees involved in Federal elections, not just the candidates' or parties' committees. MoveON is a PAC. The fact that MoveON is not affiliated with one specific campaign does not change this.


Hmmmmm. I think I understand now, I guess. I just don't see how this applies when there is no mention of a candidate. Therefore it isn't really a contribution to a campaign contribution. It is an organization putting a fairly generic add in the paper.

Like I said before I think it was dumb of the NYT to do this. I think Dems would be smart to distance themselves from MoveOn and disagree with the ad. Which some of them have.
 
2007-09-13 11:57:03 PM  
Korovyov: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR200​7​032802174. html

...and it does look like the equal-time might nix broadcast of L&O episodes featuring Sen. Thompson, as the alternative would to offer an equal amount of screen time at the same rate to the Senator's competition (any competition that's attained ballot access, that is).

News programs are exempt, but entertainment -- not so. News 'interviews' are exempt...


See I think that is dumb. It isn't like his character on the show is breaking the fourth wall and saying, "Vote for me" as the dun dun dun L&O theme plays.
 
2007-09-13 11:59:17 PM  
GWLush:It's also funny how you use Nixon's failed term as a benchmark for how this election might go.

Perhaps not that amusing.

Donald Segretti would be in good company, these days -- except that they're much more organized about how they attempt to disrupt others. Like, oh, jamming phone banks belonging to the opposition or, hell, trying to get Federal attorneys to target Democrats for voter fraud.
 
2007-09-14 12:00:25 AM  
Oh, and BTW, it's 43.5%.
 
2007-09-14 12:03:35 AM  
Korovyov: GWLush:It's also funny how you use Nixon's failed term as a benchmark for how this election might go.

Perhaps not that amusing.

Donald Segretti would be in good company, these days -- except that they're much more organized about how they attempt to disrupt others. Like, oh, jamming phone banks belonging to the opposition or, hell, trying to get Federal attorneys to target Democrats for voter fraud.


Yeah. That election seems very familiar to resent ones.
 
2007-09-14 12:08:33 AM  
GWLush:
See I think that is dumb. It isn't like his character on the show is breaking the fourth wall and saying, "Vote for me" as the dun dun dun L&O theme plays.


True. I suppose it might be argued that prolonged exposure of a candidate portrayed in a largely favorable way might bias voters towards his non-fictional self. At the least, it might keep somebody near the front of consciousness.

Now if he were playing a wise, benevolent President in a movie set in a contemporary period... things might get seriously grey. Even in L&O he's playing an executive-branch official, making assorted decisions, ostensibly for the public good.

A starring role in a movie would probably result in more free air time for the rest; only minutes actually involving him count, so for L&O somebody would have to add up how many minutes he's on screen. Now, if it were Fred Thompson gleefully slaying Teletubbies and unicorns with a chainsaw, that might not be considered favorable to him but would still probably qualify...
 
2007-09-14 12:23:35 AM  
floor9: paulseta: Not totally familiar with the ins and outs of equal time law in the US.

I'm not familiar either, but they either should have to stop showing them -- all of them, including renting & selling the movies -- from now until the conclusion of the 2012 election.


Late to the game, but you're talking about the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed more than 20 years ago.
 
2007-09-14 12:29:18 AM  
Gwendolyn: Can someone do the math. It was a $177,000 add and they gave it away or $100,000 right? That's not a 77% discount that's a $77,000 discount.

Normal rate: $167,000
Moveon.org rate: $65,000

65/167 = 0.389

Thus, Moveon.org got their ad for about 39 percent of the normal rate, or a discount of 61%.

/submitter's Math-Fu is weak
 
2007-09-14 12:33:10 AM  
GWLush: I see but they weren't actually donating to a committe of the DNC. They were buying Ad Space in a newspaper. I am still not getting it.

The same laws apply to PACs, and Moveone.org is a PAC.
 
2007-09-14 12:40:12 AM  
Korovyov: GWLush:
Not snarking. I am either reading over it or don't understand it but where in your link covers newspaper ads?

Under 'Donated Items and Services'

If you sell an item or service to a committee and ask the committee to pay less than the usual and normal charge, you have also made an in-kind contribution to the committee in the amount of the discount.

Advertising is most definitely a service. MoveON PAC, is a political action committee. Hence, the need for it to be the 'usual and normal' charge.


It appears that the Times charged MoveOn it's normal rate for advocacy groups, which is lower than it's normal rate for businesses. So they are free and clear, since they charge the same for all advocacy groups. They may have a policy that politicians running for office pay the commercial rate. If Progress for America Fund (a conservative 527) wanted to buy a newspaper ad, they would be charged the same as MoveOn.
 
2007-09-14 01:14:14 AM  
a general putting his life at risk? hardly.
 
2007-09-14 01:25:40 AM  
MyNameIsNotMervGriffin: Late to the game, but you're talking about the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed more than 20 years ago.

You're wrong.

It works like this: the fairness doctrine applies to ideology. The equal time rule applies to specific candidates.

Geotpf: It appears that the Times charged MoveOn it's normal rate for advocacy groups, which is lower than it's normal
rate for businesses. So they are free and clear, since they charge the same for all advocacy groups.


That's pretty much what I expected the first time I saw a version of this headline, not that this little fact will keep the right wingers from biatching about the big bad NYT, anyway. It's not like they need an excuse or anything.

Fart_Machine: They also have different rates for advocacy ads vs commercial ones. That's something the folks who seem so outraged over this never bother to mention.

That's because it gets in the way of hating on "the libs", which seems to be the first priority for most of them these days...
 
2007-09-14 04:43:56 AM  
Can we all agree that the most appalling thing about this story is subby's lack of math skills? Or, that the headline would have been much better with a "with a 9/11 discount?"
 
2007-09-14 08:07:39 AM  
colovion: Dinki: He can biatch and whine all he wants he isn't getting elected.

Ever hear the saying "history repeats itself?"

All of you liberals who are certain that no Republican can win should look at the 1972 election. During a war where 50,000 were dead, which was less popular than the current war and with a deadpan Republican running against the McGovernite line... the Republicans won in a LANDSLIDE.

Americans may not like war, however they absolutely HATE surrender. I wouldn't count your votes before they're cast libs.

I'm just worried that all of you may go and start jumping off of tall buildings if this happens. Not only do I not want to see mass suicides, even if it were by liberals, but that would be a LOT of paperwork for us poor schlubs in law enforcement. The pain and suffering we'd have from carpal tunnel due to all that paperwork is too terrible to imagine! So please have a rational plan for the very real possibility that history does repeat itself.

I warn because I care. I promise not to rub it in if it happens if that will ease your suffering. I hear France is a great place to flee to for liberals, you may want to keep that in mind. One year is plenty of time to get a basic understanding of the French language eh!



Cool, it's a real Republican, full of himself and full of shiat. I thought you guys disappeared, but I'm glad to see you all didn't turn into faux-libertarians. Keep it up!
 
2007-09-14 08:23:44 AM  
djkutch: Are you serious? I'm no fan of Fred, or the replubtards, but isn't that a fictional show with a fictional character?

Is this what we've come to in political discussion?


Problem is a small, but considerable portion of the republican base looks upon that character as to how he is going to run the country, he's so tough on crime!
 
2007-09-14 09:10:19 AM  
Floor9,

I agree that the shows should be pulled from the air.

However, (and I'm not sure if this has already been pointed out), you got a little bit hysterical and overreached when you suggested that rental and sales of movies or shows he is in be suspended.

You see the law only covers the use of public communication frequencies. Since the public technically owns the means by which these shows are broadcast, they cannot favor one candidate over another. In the case of rentals or purchases, they are for private use on private property. So, no, you can't has. Not yours.
 
2007-09-14 10:27:26 AM  
Remember when Rudy was Mayor and broke the law, forcing the city's public access channels to carry Fox?


Have you seen how much time Guiliani and his henchman Kerik get on Fox News?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel
Time Warner selected MSNBC as the secondary news network, instead of Fox News. Fox News claimed that this violated an agreement to carry Fox News, and Ailes used his connections to persuade Mayor Giuliani to carry Fox News and Bloomberg Television on two underutilized city-owned cable channels, which he did.

New York City also threatened to revoke Time Warner's cable franchise for not carrying Fox News.

A lawsuit was filed by Time Warner against the City of New York claiming undue interference and for inappropriate use of the city's educational channels for commercial programming. News Corporation countered with an antitrust lawsuit against Time Warner for unfairly protecting CNN. This led to an acrimonious battle between Murdoch and Turner, with Turner publicly comparing Murdoch to Adolf Hitler while Murdoch's New York Post ran an editorial questioning Turner's sanity. Giuliani's motives were also questioned, as his then-wife was a producer at Murdoch-owned WNYW-TV.


This was a crime, plain and simple that was never investigated because the channels reached an agreement.

QUID PRO QUO Mother farkers...do you speak it?
 
2007-09-14 12:08:30 PM  
Doggie McNugget: 9/11
 
2007-09-14 07:04:56 PM  
I heard George Takei talking once about running for some office in city government somewhere in California (San Francisco?). One of his opponents protested and said the local TV network needed to take the animated Star Trek show off the air while the race was going on or give him equal time on the air, because George Takei did the voice for Sulu and it wasn't fair giving him the extra exposure.

Frankly, any excuse to have gotten that thing off the air would have sounded good.

/the show, not George Takei
//don't remember whether he said it was taken off or not
 
2007-09-15 10:34:54 PM  

Jesus, doesn't anybody read Romanesko's blog at Poynter Online?

MoveOn.org confirms it paid $65,000 to the New York Times for its full page "General Betray Us" ad, while the Times says the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692. Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis says: "We do not distinguish the advertising rates based on the political content of the ad." She says lower rates are given to advertisers buying in bulk or taking a standby rate. || Related letter.
 
2007-09-16 10:29:04 PM  
Rudy Giuliani is vile scum. And the next President.
 
Displayed 32 of 82 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report