5,175
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:The New York Times (view source)
Revision as of 22:43, September 20, 2007
, 22:43, September 20, 2007thingy
The news sections of the New York Times certainly don't have a "liberal stance," even if the editorial page does.
The news sections of the New York Times certainly don't have a "liberal stance," even if the editorial page does.
== Subsidizing MoveOn claim false ==
Hi Rob,
Rather than possibly instigate an edit war I thought I'd talk with you about this here first. As explained in this week's Advertising Age, the reason that the MoveOn ad was cheaper than the rate card lists is because they used a lesser-used but publicly available "standby rate," which is a contract that allows an advertiser to choose a date but does not guarantee publication. It's like flying standby, for example.
The standby rate is the same rate that the Guiliani campaign used when they published their rebuttal/condemnation of the MoveOn ad. It's completely understandable why this misinterpretation was first made, as (like many discounted rates across many businesses) it isn't the most prominently-displayed rate. It does exist, however, and it's how both of the above-mentioned ads were purchased.
I'll wait for your acknowledgment before editing this article, or you can do it yourself if you prefer; no skin off my nose either way. :) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-and that's a lot of skin...''