For bud, and for anyone else who still has
trouble understanding what was wrong with the "General Betray Us" ad,
or why a fair-minded person would call it "beyond the pale," I call
attention to this ombudsman piece in The New York Times by Clark Hoyt. An excerpt:
The Public Editor
Betraying Its Own Best Interests
By CLARK HOYT
FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.
But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to….
Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?
The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is
known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it
should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times
had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a
company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising
sales representative made a mistake.
The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in
the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We
do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal
nature.”….
I have known Clark Hoyt — to say "hello" to; not much more — for over
20 years, and something I have always believed is that he is a
scrupulously fair person. If you held a gun to my head and forced me to guess his political leanings, I’d say (based on next to nothing) they were somewhat left of center, and probably anti-war.
I’m probably besmirching a fine journalist saying even that, and I
would not want to insult him. But I say it to praise him, because I have been struck by the principled stands he’s taken contrary to the advantage of such a
world view.
For instance, Clark Hoyt shared a Pulitzer Prize
for destroying the Democratic Party ticket in 1972. OK, that’s a little
blunt, but basically Clark and Bob Boyd were honored for reporting on
Thomas Eagleton’s shock treatments.
So those of you who believe in the "vast right-wing conspiracy" might
say, on the basis of these two incidents, that Mr. Hoyt is — contrary
to my poorly-founded impression — a charter member of the conspiracy.
But if that’s the case, how do you explain that Clark is the guy
responsible for all that anti-war reporting at the then-Knight Ridder
(now McClatchy) Washington bureau, for which the left has practically
canonized McClatchy? He was the bureau chief in those days.
Whatever Clark is — liberal, conservative, none of the above (my own
favorite) — his actions reveal him as scrupulously fair-minded. He’s
pretty much gored everybody’s ox when he thought they deserved it.
Bottom line, for me: If Clark says it, it’s worth paying attention to. That’s no doubt what the Times was thinking when it hired him to be its "Internal Affairs" guy.
Related Posts
Sorry, still not seeing what’s wrong with the ad. All this shows is someone reporting that the NYT made a mistake, honest or dishonest. It says nothing about the actual ad.
It’s saying, ex cathedra from the heart of The Times itself, that for MSM, MoveOn.org’s ad was beyond the pale.
Its an ad hominem attack, by some idiot who thought he was being cute. Lousy taste, and what it deserved was to sink into oblivion, after being factually corrected. But, I haven’t heard anyone address its alleged facts. All I’ve heard is outrage over the stupid play on the name. You are giving it power it never had.
I wonder if other organizations that ran adds on the same day as MoveOn got the same “discount.”
NY Times pretty much showed their true colors on this one. Why apologize for it? Why not just admit you are biased? Anyone with half a brain these days knows there is no such thing as unbiased reporting. Seems like the NY Times is pulling a Senator Craig.
The moveon ad was a strident, yet well supported commentary about the false statements made by General Petreaus. Any other issues obscure that fact. The General served as a front man for an administration that has made many false claims for more than 5 years regarding this atrocious occupation. With the unfolding, and predictable, Blackwater scandal it’s crystal clear that the General’s words were, indeed a betrayal of American values, the troops he purports to serve and the decency of humanity.
One American Organization helped another American Organization exercise it’s right to free speech. Get OVER IT!!
Why quibble? The ad accused Petraeus of treason. It’s blunt hate speech from the people who coined the term “hate speech.” And now we find out the Times let them speak on the cheap.
Pot, kettle, sad, sad, sad.
I agree 100% with Karen on this one. It was a stupid ad, all coming about because somebody was really proud of their dumb pun. How anybody at MoveOn could think it could do anything other than damage their cause is beyond me. (I suppose the real point of the ad, seeing as how it ran in the Times—preaching to the converted—was to fire up its base to donate more money).
My question now is, does Fox News have an ombudsman?
I’ve known him a long time, and he’s a straight arrow on stuff like this. Just great, basic reporting on a controversial topic.
Liked what you had to say.
Z
Dave Zeeck
executive editor
The News Tribune
1950 S. State Street
Tacoma, WA 98405