Thursday, September 13, 2007

New York Times PAID Lion’s Share of the MoveOn Ad!
















.

It turns out that the NY Times paid for the bulk of MoveOn’s “General Betray-us” ad!

MoveOn only paid $65,000 for the full page ad that usually runs (according to the NY Time’s own rate book) some $167,157!

That means the NY Times picked up almost two-thirds of the ad price for MoveOn’s slanderous ad.

Moreover, it places the NY Times squarely in the radical camp, along with other notorious anti-American netroot organizations from MoveON to the D-Kos.

I guess we can’t say the NY Times has “a Liberal bias” any more. It’s more like a radical, anti-American one.


SEE: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3581727&page=1


H/T Mick Brady (http://dancingintongues.blogspot.com/)

2 comments:

gerry rosser said...

Hmmm, how come righties get so upset when liberal, radical-liberal, or loonie-liberals get to express themselves? You always act like something terrible has happened when, in fact, something wonderful has happened--freedom of speech. So MoveOn has some agenda you don't like, so the NYT seems to be palsy-walsy with MoveOn, so what?

The term "anti-American" and others like it are terribly popular with "conservatives" who don't like what other people, not in their camp, say. I find it pretty lame, but not "insulting." First, I don't accept any labelling, and, second, freedom of speech doesn't scare me.

Have I ever thanked you for welcoming my views on your blog, and for engaging in discussions?
Thanks.

JMK said...

Gerry, I have no problem with expression.

I have a huge problem when a MSM news organ endorses a radical viewpoint, as our news organs should have no overt agenda.

The NY Times giveing MoveOn that discount would be the same as a major news organ giving such a break (and thus a tacit endorsement) to the anti-government, militia movement that grew during the Clinton administration.

I have no problem with militia members and other anti-government activists, even anarchists "expressing themselves," but I do have a problem when the MSM endorses those kinds of fringe viewpoints in this way.

As for the "thanks," no need Gerry, as I'm glad to be able to engage someone I may disagree with in an amenable manner.

Sadly, today's political discourse has taken on some of the overtones of earlier religious discussions - those who disagree, are more often considered "heretics," to those on the other side, rather than merely fellow citizens who merely see things differently on certain issues.

American Ideas Click Here!