Giuliani gets MoveOn.org Ad Rate from NY Times
[Guest post by DRJ]
I can’t find a link [link here thanks to NK] but I saw this on Fox News today:
In response to reports that MoveOn.org paid $65,000 for its recent full-page ad on “General Betray Us,” Rudy Giuliani sought the same $65,000 rate for a full-page response ad in the NY Times. Initially, he was told the rate was only available to purchasers that are flexible on the date the ad will run – that is, the ad rate was available only for purchasers who gave the NY Times the option to run the ad during a 3-4 day time span. Giuliani pointed out that MoveOn.org’s ad ran on a targeted date immediately prior to General Petraeus’ Congressional testimony.
The segment concluded with a statement that the NY Times decided to sell Giuliani a full-page ad for today at the rate of $65,000.
Smart move by Giuliani and, if this sets a precedent for full-page political ad rates, bad news for the NY Times. I doubt it will affect long-term ad rates but the NY Times must have concerns about the MoveOn.org ad or it wouldn’t have discounted Giuliani’s ad.
– DRJ
Here’s a New York Daily News Story that says the same.
[NK- Thanks for the link. I've moved it to the post.]
Comment by nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 6:33 am
But here’s a QandO post that discusses how the NYT might not be able to do it for legal reasons…
Basicly, MoveOn.org isn’t a campaign committee (only technically, we all know better), but Rudy is. Thus any discount to their normal price would be considered a contribution in the eyes of the FEC.
But I have to wonder, doesn’t that only apply during the 30/60 day period from McCain/Feingold?
Just putting it out there…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (425810) — 9/14/2007 @ 6:56 am
This seems like the same tactics. Look, I like Rudy, but I am well aware of his liberal tendencies. Not my first choice, but definitely my second. The man has not tried to hide who is he, or what he believes.
That being said, he is the most liberal of the Republicans, as well as from New York. If, by some miracle, a Republican wins the White House, I gotta believe that the NYT would prefer that it was Rudy.
The question is whether they would give Fred the same rate.
Comment by Scott (412f3f) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:15 am
I think Rudy did himself a lot of good this week. Two interesting pieces: “Rudy Hits the Trifecta”, Weekly Standard
and from the Chicago Sun-Times, this piece
Comment by driver (faae10) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:32 am
They were breaking the law when they gave Guiliani this rate.
Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:51 am
In response to Scott’s point in comment 3, it would seem that the precedent has been set and that all candidates from all parties can now demand the $65,000 rate for a full-page ad. The real question is whether Republican candidates will be interested in paying the NYT $65k for any reason whatsoever.
What would be completely awesome is if the laws cited in the various blogs force the NYT to offer that $65,000 rate to everyone who wishes to purchase an ad, whether a business, nonprofit, political organization, etc. You can imagine the nightmares that the person in charge of ad revenue must be having right about now.
Comment by JVW (6a3590) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:59 am
That’s what should happen.
Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:03 am
JVW, what about refunds for all those recently overcharged?
Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:04 am
Start cutting the checks.
Comment by JVW (6a3590) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:13 am
My question, which I failed to state coherently in the previous thread: Is NYT “breaking the law” or only the PAC and/or the campaign? More specifically, does the FEC have jurisdiction over NYT? The net effect for money going into a campaign may be the same but as a principle of not chilling the political speech of a newspaper, or anybody else for that matter, it’s an important distinction.
Comment by nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:20 am
You know, we constantly hear fatuous media types drone on about “the wall of separation” between a news organization’s editorial and advertising departments. It, of course, is expected to work one way: the advertising department is not allowed to affect editorial coverage of any of the advertisers to that medium. For example, the fact that Bob’s Cadillac Emporium routinely places big ads in the newspaper doesn’t mean that an enterprising reporter can’t investigate Bob’s penchant for paying his janitors substandard wages, nor does it mean that the advertising department should convince the editor not to run that sort of piece.
Wouldn’t it be completely ironic if we find out that “editorial” pressure forced advertising to cut its regular rates for the MoveOn ad? I can’t imagine that the NYT editor (is it still Bill Keller?) has that much clout, so it seems that it would have to have been Pinch Sulzberger himself who greenlighted the rate reduction. And all because he agrees with their politics.
Of course, it could also be that the head of advertising at the NYT is also a committed lefty and made the decision on his or her own. And it is still possible — though less and less likely — that there is a legitimate explanation for why MoveOn got a reduced rate.
Comment by JVW (6a3590) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:28 am
P.S.: Assume for the sake of argument that I am a gangster who has managed to steal about 50 million dollars. After paying 90% of it to “The Bosses” for permission to operate, I have 5 million left. I spend one million of that in campaign contributions to the party most likely to take it easy on me should I get caught, under cover of this letter: “Please accept this contribution for your campaign. I don’t know whether it’s legal, that’s your lookout. Do with it whatever you wish.” Have I broken a campaign finance law or have only the candidates if they use my money?
Comment by nk (474afa) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:30 am
re Scott’s “But I have to wonder, doesn’t that only apply during the 30/60 day period from McCain/Feingold?” comment
I was thinking the same thing myself, but McCain/Feingold has more holes in it than a cowboy in a Sam Peckinpah movie, so who knows.
Your speculation on how NYT’s efforts to get themselves OUT of trouble by giving Rudy the discount rate could actually get them in bigger trouble makes no sense from a logical standpoint, which makes me thing you might be on to something
Comment by Sean P (e57269) — 9/14/2007 @ 10:33 am
Hasn’t the NY Times effectively established their print advertising rate for the coming election season, subject to placement, day of the week, color, etc … ?
Comment by JD (f6a000) — 9/14/2007 @ 10:47 am
It would be difficult to overstate what an enormous publicity windfall this whole ad debate has been for MoveOn and its supporters.
They initially bought a single black-and-white ad in a single newspaper and it was probably seen by far, far less than one percent of the American public. Most NYT subscribers (including me) didn’t even read it at the time. But thanks to Rudy and the right wing noise machine, MoveOn has stretched out that single bit of advertising to cover several days and tens of millions of Americans. They’ve increased their visibility, made themselves more relevant, spread their message wider, and attracted a whole new raft of supporters and donations. It’s been a godsend. And blog participants like you helped make it all happen!
So, on behalf of war opponents everywhere, let me just say… THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
Comment by Oregonian (1dc3c8) — 9/14/2007 @ 11:57 am
You’re welcome, Oregonian, but I think it’s a two-way street. Every time a liberal remembers “General Betray Us” with delight, a conservative will remember it, too. I guess we’ll see whose membership has the longer memory.
Comment by DRJ (4725f3) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:03 pm
What you don’t realize, Oregonian, is that for gravel-sucking plecostomi like Moveon.org, there’s no such thing as good publicity.
Comment by Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:18 pm
NK #10,
James Taranto addresses some of the election law issues.
Comment by DRJ (4725f3) — 9/14/2007 @ 12:28 pm
DRJ #18 -
From the WSJ piece:
So it looks like it turned out to be a non-issue.
Comment by Itsme (5ddbca) — 9/14/2007 @ 5:33 pm
Sorry, I should have said it was a quote from the NYT included in the WSJ piece.
Here’s the actual article for anyone who can access it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/us/politics/14paper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Comment by Itsme (5ddbca) — 9/14/2007 @ 5:37 pm
Itsme,
From the same WSJ link at comment #18:
So it may be a non-issue, or it may not. We still don’t know.
Comment by DRJ (4725f3) — 9/14/2007 @ 6:02 pm
Taranto makes the point that it is nonsense to claim that the ad was purchased on standby, when it had to run by Monday or be irrelevant.
But of course it could never be proven that the NYT gave them a deal on the pretext that it was a “standby” rate, while fully intending to run it next day like a full-price ad. What are we going to do, give everybody involved a polygraph?
So the issue can go no further; it’s a matter of who you believe. I know who I believe, or rather, don’t. Some day I’ll take out a full-page ad in the NYT and tell everybody, as soon as their circulation dives so low they’re giving those pages away.
Comment by Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 9/14/2007 @ 6:17 pm
#21 and #22:
Actually, they just can’t guarantee the preferred date. That doesn’t mean they won’t try to accommodate your request if possible.
As to “letting them know in advance,” the NYT spokeswoman said it is the usual practice.
Comment by Itsme (5ddbca) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:46 pm
Addendum:
According to the NYT spokeswoman, “If we have room, we try to accommodate them.”
Comment by Itsme (5ddbca) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:51 pm
Itsme,
Do you think there might be a difference in how accommodating they are, depending on who’s asking and the content of the ad?
Comment by DRJ (4725f3) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:53 pm
DTJ #25:
The spokeswoman specifically said they don’t.
Comment by Itsme (5ddbca) — 9/14/2007 @ 7:59 pm
I will tell you whose “accuracy” I question.
Well, actually he was offered the very same rate and placement opportunity, as he himself admits:
Of course he could pick the date and placement, he just couldn’t have it guaranteed.
Comment by Itsme (5ddbca) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:18 pm
Itsme,
It may surprise you but I’m willing to keep an open mind on this topic. As the spokesman says, the NY Times might charge different rates for floating ads and that might be what happened here. However, I’m not willing to take their word for it. I need confirmation.
Comment by DRJ (4725f3) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:18 pm
But whether it is or is not an issue, you will still believe that is. Whether “NYT gave MoveOn discount because of their politics” is or is not a lie, it makes a good subject for a campaign speech, so you can’t really call Fred Thompson who’s pushing this meme everywhere a liar, he’s just a good campaigner.
Or how would you see it? Is claiming that something happened without bothering to check the facts lying, or is it gullibility, or is it just some visionary quality where you see things as they really are, you know, not in this petty thing called reality, but in the higher order of things.
Comment by Nikolay (939eb6) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:19 pm
DRJ #28
I too am willing to keep an open mind. But absent any evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to believe that they departed from a policy made known to customers of all politcal stripes.
Comment by Itsme (5ddbca) — 9/14/2007 @ 8:35 pm
Actually, A recent SCotUS ruling narrowed a hole…
And frankly, I am having a hard time finding fault with not allowing corps use non-marked money for politicl purposes.
I know… It scares me too…
Comment by Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 9/14/2007 @ 10:57 pm
DRJ, you so have to read this. And do a post on it:
Comment by Christoph (92b8f7) — 9/15/2007 @ 3:01 pm