Sunday, September 23, 2007

Who’s Fooled by Sulzberger?

The NY Betray Us finally admits today what most of you have known for nearly two weeks.

From NYT public editor 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.

On Monday, Sept. 10, the day that Gen. David H. Petraeus came before Congress to warn against a rapid withdrawal of troops, The Times carried a full-page ad attacking his truthfulness.

Under the provocative headline “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” the ad, purchased by the liberal activist group, charged that the highly decorated Petraeus was “constantly at war with the facts” in giving upbeat assessments of progress and refusing to acknowledge that Iraq is “mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.”

“Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us,” declared. […]
Further along we read:
[Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of its parent company, ] said he wasn’t aware of’s latest ad until it appeared in the paper. [He added:] “If we’re going to err, it’s better to err on the side of more political dialogue. ... Perhaps we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice to people.”[...]
Does anyone believe the NYT would have given a huge ad discount to a Right to Life group wanting to place an ad opposing abortion or a pro-Bush group that wanted to list false statements made by Democrats attacking the President?

The “family and friends” discount the Times gave is an example of how deeply leftist rot has seeped into what was once a very respected news organization.

Sulzberger’s response is an all too obvious obfuscation. What he’s really telling us is things aren’t going to change at the Times.

Hoyt's entire column is here.

Hat tip: Mike Williams


Anonymous said...

After Durham/Duke/Lacrosse who would believe the page numbers on the New York Times? The New York Times likes to think of itself as the paper of record. Yesirree - Under Pinch Sulzberger The Times has a record -- a record of biased, wrong and not wanting to know the truth. Until Sulzberger is dumped by the Ochs/Sulzberger family and the newspaper can show it is not an editorial parading as news, my suggestion is, down waste your time with The Times.

Anonymous said...

Duff Wilson wasn't the only problem. Who were his editors? And who pulled reporter Joe Drape off the lacrosse hoax/frame coverage? Perhaps this will be clearer after the libel suit is filed.

Anonymous said...

Of course things aren't going to change at the Times... The utter certainly that they are absolutely right, and that being on the "right" side justifies whatever vile tactics they can sink to, are hallmarks of the Loony Left.