Difference between revisions of "Talk:The New York Times"

Revision as of 00:31, September 21, 2007

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. :) Aziraphale 18:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT) <-and that's a lot of skin...

Removal of my edit?

Tash, why did you remove the part about the WP vandalism staying up less than a minute?

I wouldn't even call that a controversy to begin with. Somebody inside the NYT offices made a silly edit that got instantly reverted. It's not exactly something that led to frontpage news, angry comments, or whatever. (If there were any, please add references to them - I don't see any) --Jenkins 19:36, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

• What you added, Jenkins, is spin, worthy of a Times employee or a Liberal. But it was an unsubstantiated conjecture. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)