RTFA: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i1odejEActt5Dtx…
Hoyt said he was asked to investigate the ad rate by FreedomsWatch.org, which advocates a strong national defense and a powerful fight against terrorism, because it said it wasn’t offered a similar rate.
Pariser told Hoyt his group had called three days before the ad ran and asked to place it. He said MoveOn was told the ad would cost $65,000 and that the ad would run on Sept. 10 as it had requested.”We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” Pariser told the Times.
Mathis told Hoyt the newspaper’s advertising representative failed to make clear that the Times could not guarantee the Monday placement for the reduced rate but left MoveOn with the understanding that the ad would run then.
“That was contrary to our policies,” she said.
Freedom’s Watch president Bradley A. Blakeman praised Hoyt for criticizing the paper’s ad policy, and said it had paid a similar, reduced rate for an ad blasting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s appearance Monday at Columbia University.
That full-page ad, headlined “Ahmadinejad is a terrorist,” appeared in Monday’s editions. Blakeman said his group did not receive a guarantee that it would run on the date it had sought.
We posted this link September 24th on RTFA, but I am re-posting it after new analysis. I would like to note the excerpts in bold, above. This apparent contradiction has a story behind it.
We begin with Freedom’s Watch, who describe themselves as fighters and protectors, dedicated to keeping America prosperous.
Freedom’s Watch placed an ad in the Times stating “Ahmadinejad is a terrorist.” Freedom’s Watch paid the same rate moveon.org paid for their Petraeus ad.
Next, Freedom’s Watch contacted Clark Hoyt to write a column critical of moveon.org and the Times, because the Times gave moveon.org a discount - the very same discount Freedom’s Watch received.
Hoyt, currently at the height of his career as the Times’ Public Editor, dutifully criticizes moveon.org and the Times, but inexplicably ignores Freedom’s Watch.
This apparent omission, or perhaps the undue focus on moveon.org, is questionable, particularly given Hoyt’s position with the Times. Has the Times only erred in its ad pricing, or is its Public Editor policy in need of examination, as well?
