Iraq: Petraeus ad war
Blogged by: Andrew Stroehlein
Reuters and AlertNet are not responsible for the content of this article or for any external internet sites. The views expressed are the author's alone.
There's a rumour going around that a man walked into a shop to buy a loaf of bread, and as he was paying for it, the shopkeeper handed him a bar of chocolate and said, "Here, on the house." Now, everyone in town has come rushing to the shop demanding free chocolate. The shopkeeper is taken aback, unreasonable demands turn to outrage, and before you know it, rocks are shattering his shop window. The New York Times advertising department is facing the unfortunate shopkeeper's fate this week.
An enormous stink has been circulating online and off about the anti-war ad the activist group moveon.org placed in The New York Times on Monday, the day US General David Petraeus gave testimony to Congress on the Iraq war. The ad, titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" was unquestionably provocative, and all the fuss about it just proves how effective it has been. From moveon.org's perspective, that's money well spent, then. Ah, but how much money? That's where a new problem has arisen, with accusations now flying around that the Times gave moveon.org a discount on the ad space for political reasons -- a charge the paper rejects.
Ignoring for the moment the attempt to shift media attention away from the war and on to attacking moveon.org -- a fairly common tactic of freakier parts of the American blogosphere -- I think this argument is pretty ridiculous for at least two reasons.
First, as someone who has placed a few ads with The New York Times and other major papers over the years, I can tell you that their pricing structure is pretty complicated. There are all sorts of prices for what would seem to be the same ad. It's like being on an airplane and asking those seated around you what they paid for their flights: no two people will have the same answer. And with every newspaper I've ever dealt with, it is possible to negotiate ad prices somewhat depending on a number of factors: volume and timing being just two.
Even more importantly, though: so what? The New York Times runs its advertising as a business. If they decided to give a customer a discount for whatever reason, that is their right. Are critics implying the state should somehow regulate newspaper advertising rates? Please, angry mob, move away from the shopkeeper's window.
An enormous stink has been circulating online and off about the anti-war ad the activist group moveon.org placed in The New York Times on Monday, the day US General David Petraeus gave testimony to Congress on the Iraq war. The ad, titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" was unquestionably provocative, and all the fuss about it just proves how effective it has been. From moveon.org's perspective, that's money well spent, then. Ah, but how much money? That's where a new problem has arisen, with accusations now flying around that the Times gave moveon.org a discount on the ad space for political reasons -- a charge the paper rejects.
Ignoring for the moment the attempt to shift media attention away from the war and on to attacking moveon.org -- a fairly common tactic of freakier parts of the American blogosphere -- I think this argument is pretty ridiculous for at least two reasons.
First, as someone who has placed a few ads with The New York Times and other major papers over the years, I can tell you that their pricing structure is pretty complicated. There are all sorts of prices for what would seem to be the same ad. It's like being on an airplane and asking those seated around you what they paid for their flights: no two people will have the same answer. And with every newspaper I've ever dealt with, it is possible to negotiate ad prices somewhat depending on a number of factors: volume and timing being just two.
Even more importantly, though: so what? The New York Times runs its advertising as a business. If they decided to give a customer a discount for whatever reason, that is their right. Are critics implying the state should somehow regulate newspaper advertising rates? Please, angry mob, move away from the shopkeeper's window.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
3 responses to “Iraq: Petraeus ad war”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Journalist Andrew Stroehlein is Director of Media and Information for the International Crisis Group, the conflict resolution organisation, where he promotes responsible coverage of current and potential conflicts and helps draw attention to forgotten wars around the world.
17 Sep 2007 18:58:37 GMT
Sir: Surely the price paid for this ad. is not what upsets some U.S. people, it's the content. Had the New York Times carried an ad.that accused Iran of possessing more arms and a nuclear capability greater than the west, including Israel, put together then I'm sure there would have been a resounding wave of applause from the same folk who criticised the moveonorg. ad. Terry Davidson
18 Sep 2007 09:21:26 GMT
I listened to Petraeus' testimony with some hope, since I find the military often more realistic than their civilian political overlords. Unfortunately, Petraeus sounded more like an apologist for the war in Vietnam that an objective observer of our situation in Iraq. No one can possibly believe that Petraeus' testimony was not vetted up and down the line before he appeared at his committee hearing. At no time during the hearing did he caution that strengthening the Sunni position in Iraq (as happy as it may seem in isolation in the "hearts and minds" strategy) has already had an effect on the central government and has Middle Eastern scholars expressing concern about civil war's breaking out before we even have a chance to leave. When one of the members of the committee congratulated him on engaging in "tried and true" counter-insurgency techniques in winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis, I felt this grim sense of "deja' vu" all over again. I deeply appreciate that someone, in this case the moveon.org folks, had the courage to point out that neither the emperor nor his minions have clothes on and expect us to continue pretending they do. I congratulate the New York Times. I chastise its detractors both on the grounds of free speech but also for the continued gullibility of people who, according to the polls, believe we should be out of Iraq, but lack the courage to push their representative to actually DO something about it.
19 Sep 2007 17:22:26 GMT
Meanwhile, Petraeus continued to peddel his misleading and, as far as can seen, inaccurate account of a decline in violence across iraq. This is what the real fuss should be about.