The ombudsman for The New York Times has responded to the controversy over the MoveOn ad. There have been two major issues–whether MoveOn unfairly received a price break for ideological reasons and whether an ad using language such as “General Betray Us” should have been run at all.
The answer to the first question remains murky. Clark Hoyt, the ombudsman for The New York Times writes that “the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.” Later in the article the following explanation is provided:
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…
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.”
The issue remains unclear as those of us who purchase advertising (or conduct any type of business) are well aware that virtually all prices are negotiable and “upgrades” are commonly given by salesmen to make the deal. Whenever I purchase an ad I generally hold out for a better rate and salespeople always seem able to find a way to give a better price. Providing a customer with a stand by rate, even if the ad is to appear on a certain date, is hardly beyond the types of breaks I’ve personally experienced. I still wonder if sales people at The New York Times have given such price breaks to make an ad sale in the past, if this was a simple error, or if this was a favor granted uniquely to MoveOn for ideological reasons.
The other issue is even more ambiguous. Hoyt writes:
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.
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.
If the advertising was up to me, I would have also avoided language such as “Betray Us” but it is less clear as to whether others who wish to use such language in an ad should be prevented from doing so. Exact rules could never be written to handle all such potential ads and it is understandable that there could be disagreement even within The New York Times as to whether this particular ad should have been run. Regardless, the Times deserves credit for openly discussing this issue.
Hoyt also writes:
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.”
I agree with Hoyt that this gave the Republicans an opportunity to change the subject in the short term, but I also believe he attributes far too much significance to the right wing noise machine. Yes, plenty of conservative pundits and bloggers are taking advantage of this to both avoid discussion of the war and to bash The New York Times. However, while they may have had influence in the past, they have been discredited over the past couple of years and convince far less people than they could in the past. They will probably always continue with their echo chamber and convince each other of the correctness of their extremist beliefs but far fewer people believe anything they have to say.
Most Americans, assuming they are even aware of the controversy, will soon forget the ad but the war will not go away. They will realize that, as Bill Richardson wrote, Ad’s don’t kill people, wars do. The conservatives won a Pyhrric victory in the Senate with the resolution condemning the ad. Their supporters may have cheered, but most Americans will look back and question why the Senate was wasting time on such nonsense as opposed to working to get our soldiers home. This example will also be of value the next time conservatives unfairly attack veterans such as John Kerry and Max Cleland and they are forced to explain why they fail to respect their own standards.
Update: Response from MoveOn
Exactly: “Most Americans . . . will soon forget the ad but the war will not go away.”
Roger Ailes is entitled to a prison term.
Roger Ailes spreads misinformation and views I disagree with, but what he does is protected by the First Amendment. As much as I disagree with him, I don’t see where he is “entitled to a prison term.”