.
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/)
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?
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
Gerry, I have no problem with expression.
ReplyDeleteI 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.