New York Times: No Room for Ethics in Journalism

[XGuy]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007...a_hefty_di.htm

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

I'm not even really sure I can come up with an analogy for this one. Oh wait. "Homosexuals to burn in Hell," full black and white advertisement, New York Times gives Focus on the Family a $116,000 price cut on the ad. Would you tolerate that liberals?

[Smushygirl]

You believe what you read in the New York Post?!!

[Blackjack]

...because the Post is all about ethics.

[XGuy]

I don't recall ever supporting the post? I don't read the post, it was a link I got. I won't read my local paper for the same reason. That doesn't automatically mean everything they produce must be a lie.

[RVGleason]

Originally Posted by Smushygirl

You believe what you read in the New York Post?!!

The story has been confirmed. Guillianni is requesting the Times to print a full page ad and is demanding the same ad rate Move-On got. Seems only fair.

[pani]

So what! One of the reasons ads are so expensive in the first place is because the media is a tool for corporations and their cronies to manipulate the public. Many grass roots groups can't afford it. So media is saturated with what they want us to know. So a political group got a break! Good! Three cheers! There should be more ads made available to other than the mega rich! Here is to justice in the Universe!

[Fuzzy]

Its obvious that the NYT is a mouthpeice for the left. The right shouldn't expect fairness from the NYT. Ever.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by pani

So what! One of the reasons ads are so expensive in the first place is because the media is a tool for corporations and their cronies to manipulate the public. Many grass roots groups can't afford it. So media is saturated with what they want us to know. So a political group got a break! Good! Three cheers! There should be more ads made available to other than the mega rich! Here is to justice in the Universe!

Um, the reason that the ads are so expensive is because that's what it takes to keep the paper in business. And, increasingly, it's waht's sending papers out of business...

[XGuy]

Originally Posted by pani

So what! One of the reasons ads are so expensive in the first place is because the media is a tool for corporations and their cronies to manipulate the public. Many grass roots groups can't afford it. So media is saturated with what they want us to know. So a political group got a break! Good! Three cheers! There should be more ads made available to other than the mega rich! Here is to justice in the Universe!

I feel bad for Move On, I mean their poor grassroots organization that struggles to get by. I mean hell, who the hell are these people like George Soros- they must not have any money.

I mean seriously, MoveOn.org is a "grassroots" organization just like the KKK is (on a political level)- they stand for retardation, and a "grassroots" organization like the NRA (the N-R-what? Never heard of 'em).

[Wild Zero]

I don't see what the ad manager's politics have to do with the journalistic integrity of the Times.

Does the editorial page lean to the left? Sure, but that's where opinions and editorials are supposed to go. Is the ad manager displaying bias? Yes, but the ad department is separate from the newsroom. Does any of this impact the quality of their coverage of hard news? Absolutely not, the Times is still one of if not the best newspaper in terms of covering news.

So yes, I call bullshit on the thread title.

[panhype]

Originally Posted by Wild Zero

I don't see what the ad manager's politics have to do with the journalistic integrity of the Times.

Does the editorial page lean to the left? Sure, but that's where opinions and editorials are supposed to go. Is the ad manager displaying bias? Yes, but the ad department is separate from the newsroom. Does any of this impact the quality of their coverage of hard news? Absolutely not, the Times is still one of if not the best newspaper in terms of covering news.

So yes, I call bullshit on the thread title.

(Emphasis in quote by me)

Looks like the OP doesn't have a clue about how a newspaper is run.

Selling ads slots in a paper is business like selling such slots for the Super Bowl. If there a non-profit organization had been granted a considerable cut, would that discredit the Super Bowl?

Another discussion would be if this was a very wise decision of the NYT ads department managers ...

[Tina]

Originally Posted by RVGleason

The story has been confirmed. Guillianni is requesting the Times to print a full page ad and is demanding the same ad rate Move-On got. Seems only fair.

Why?

Now, I'm not a Times supporter, because they just print 'whatever,' like most supposed news sources -- whether it was slamming Bill Clinton or supporting George Bush's positions from time to time (so much for it being a Liberal rag, eh?), BUT, in a capitalist society, isn't it okay for a restaurant to serve whomever they want, turn away whomever they want, and for a business to charge whatever they want, whether it seems biased or not? Doesn't the market, and customers' dollars, dictate whether they stay in business or not?

I find it funny that a supposed Conservative is crying about this. Seems hypocritical, but then I don't like most politicians, and true, honorable journalism is dead.

[Ned Sonntag]

Originally Posted by Tina

Why?

Now, I'm not a Times supporter, because they just print 'whatever,' like most supposed new sources -- whether it was slamming Bill Clinton or supporting George Bush's positions from time to time (so much for it being a Liberal rag, eh?), BUT, in a capitalist society, isn't it okay for a restaurant to serve whomever they want, turn away whomever they want, and for a business to charge whatever they want, whether it seems biased or not? Doesn't the market, and customers' dollars, dictate whether they stay in business or not?

I find it funny that a supposed Conservative is crying about this. Seems hypocritical, but then I don't like most politicians, and true, honorable journalism is dead.

Right; after the whole Judith Miller thing the Times might be trying to assuage some guilt here. This is a pretty rare occurance for lefties to get a discount from the great media pimpdom.

[panhype]

Originally Posted by Tina

(...) BUT, in a capitalist society, isn't it okay for a restaurant to serve whomever they want, turn away whomever they want, and for a business to charge whatever they want, whether it seems biased or not? Doesn't the market, and customers' dollars, dictate whether they stay in business or not?
(...)

I'm not sure about that, Tina. What i know is that at least in Germany (but i would expect that for the US too) that a newspaper must have an ads price list and charge according to that. Otherwise they could charge lets say Apple $50,000 and Microsoft $200,000 for the same spot. Hardly imaginable. Of course they can reject ads that contradict 'the paper's principles' ... like Conrad would reject ads for Slim Fast, at least so i would assume

But that's an instrument that should be handled with caution. Applying it arbitrarily will always result in bad news, something that's not in a newspaper's interest. Like what is happening here right now - it may look 'okay' to give a non-profit organization a better deal but in this given example the better deal overlaps with a particular political agenda. That's why i doubted the smartness behind this decision in my post above.

[Ned Sonntag]

Originally Posted by XGuy

I don't recall ever supporting the post? I don't read the post, it was a link I got. I won't read my local paper for the same reason. That doesn't automatically mean everything they produce must be a lie.

I check the Post every day. It's the fun-est paper on Earth. But it's totally dedicated to legalizing and furthermore glamorizing prostitution worldwide... Murdoch has pretty much achieved that in China now, and the longterm goal is to 'git 'er done' in the Islamic world. Not the healthiest manifestation of smallscale entrepreneurialism, but dear to the heart of the Master and Commander. Now; is that Conservatism? It's definitely a linchpin of NeoConservatism...

[TraciJo67]

When I was in college, I spent a few years working part-time in the advertising department of a city daily paper. There were set rates for space/type, but I worked on commission and had discretion to sell for lower than the set rates. Granted, this wasn't the NYT, but I'm betting that the salespeople have the same autonomy.

Not saying that there wasn't favoritism, just that there very well could be another explanation.

[Wild Zero]

Originally Posted by TraciJo67

When I was in college, I spent a few years working part-time in the advertising department of a city daily paper. There were set rates for space/type, but I worked on commission and had discretion to sell for lower than the set rates. Granted, this wasn't the NYT, but I'm betting that the salespeople have the same autonomy.

Not saying that there wasn't favoritism, just that there very well could be another explanation.

Indeed, I'm currently running the ads department (among a fuckton of other things as we try to fill editors positions at the beginning of the semester) at my school's paper and in addition to the set in stone discounts for student organizations I have the option of offering discounted rates to loyal advertisers. I can't say that I've furiously checked the Times for moveon.org ads in the past, but if they have consistently placed ads in the Times it makes sense that they'd receive a discount.

[XGuy]

Originally Posted by panhype

(Emphasis in quote by me)

Looks like the OP doesn't have a clue about how a newspaper is run.

...

Another discussion would be if this was a very wise decision of the NYT ads department managers ...

Well shit you'd think someone would be responsible for hiring unethical, retarded, advertisement folks?

It is no different than when a single reporter commits an ethic violation- just because it was "one person" doesn't mean the newspaper is free from trouble.

Looks to me like you don't have a clue about how the world works. You're responsible for who you hire, and what they do.

[XGuy]

Originally Posted by Tina

I find it funny that a supposed Conservative is crying about this. Seems hypocritical, but then I don't like most politicians, and true, honorable journalism is dead.

You can't keep care of your dog anymore, so you are forced to give him to the humane society. I buy him, and eat him- it's a capitilist system right? Oh wait no, there are protections. Ever heard of ummm what's it called, oh yeah libel, you'd think that should be legal in capitilism wouldn't you?

[Paul Delacroix]

I don't do any house painting these days, hence do not lay newspapers out on floors anymore. So I don't have any use for them.

In any case, if I want to read a tabloid, I can just buy the Enquirer or the Globe.

[Imp]

Originally Posted by XGuy

You can't keep care of your dog anymore, so you are forced to give him to the humane society. I buy him, and eat him- it's a capitilist system right? Oh wait no, there are protections. Ever heard of ummm what's it called, oh yeah libel, you'd think that should be legal in capitilism wouldn't you?

Um, for those of us who don't speak this language, um, what?

[Smushygirl]

Originally Posted by panhype

But that's an instrument that should be handled with caution. Applying it arbitrarily will always result in bad news, something that's not in a newspaper's interest. Like what is happening here right now - it may look 'okay' to give a non-profit organization a better deal but in this given example the better deal overlaps with a particular political agenda. That's why i doubted the smartness behind this decision in my post above.

Aren't ad rates really up to the discretion of the sales manager? Yes, there is a rate card, but like Tracijo said, there is some leeway, especially if money is guaranteed coming in. Cash is king, and I'm sure advertising revenue at a newspaper is down. Deals are cut all the time. If the Times gives discount rates to a non-profit organization, it is their call.

I don't agree with it necessarily, especially with the right running around saying the sky is falling.

[Wild Zero]

Originally Posted by Imp

Um, for those of us who don't speak this language, um, what?

I think he was getting at the fact that the ad in question said something like "General Petraeus? More like General BETRAY US!"

But if one was to classify the ad (which beyond the headline makes its case without snappy declarations like that) as "libel" it would mean that pretty much ANY political ad is libelous or slanderous. Not to mention that Petraeus is a public figure, which makes hitting Moveon.org with a libel charge really hard as he's pretty much fair game.


I still don't see where the OP is coming from RE: the issue with the thread title. The ad department is COMPLETELY DIVORCED from the newsroom and while the person in charge of appointing an ad manager is after profit in that department, they know (or should know if they're running THE paper in the most culturally influential nation) that their paper's credibility is what guarantees profits.

If it was reported that the management was instructing REPORTERS to skew things to the left or right, then we'd have a story (and by reported I mean an actual report from a credible source, not talk radio and right wing blogs screeching about bias because they don't know the difference between the editorial page and the news pages). As it is the thread title is still bullshit.

[XGuy]

I wasn't saying this ad was libel (though to say it is like a political ad is completly off base since the General is not an elected official), what I was responding to was the idea that because of capitilism newspapers should be able to print anything they want- basically what another poster had responded to me with.

[Risible]

The NYT is a liberal magazine, IMO. Because the NYT journalists show such an obvious political bias, I have to question how fair or ethical their reporting is when it comes to politics. The same holds true for both Newsweek magazine and the Los Angeles Times, both of which we subscribe to. I just can't trust the articles on politics. But then, I've never made a practice of believing everything I read when I'm gathering info to decide who I'm gonna vote for in any given election.

I understand that Moveon.org got a discount because they took out a "floater" ad, one that could be run on any day of the week. I guess Guiliani is going to take out the same type of ad, same size, and see what kind of rate he is offered. However, I think it's reasonable for a newspaper, which is essentially a for-profit business, should be able to charge any rate they want to, just as the consumer has the right to decline.