’)
Fanned by Rupert Murdoch’s NY Post, the cons are pushing the idea today that the NY Times did something special by lowering the rate for MoveOn’s ad against Petraeus. First off, isn’t George Soros supposedly handing out Nazi gold wrapped in aborted baby’s skin to the whole left? Why would MoveOn need a discount? Secondly and most seriously, don’t newspapers and other media outlets tend to give discounts to regular advertisers in exchange for constant business? Isn’t MoveOn a regular advertiser in the Times (among other outlets?)?
Yeah.
Third, aren’t these the very same people who squeal “freedom of speech” every time anyone suggests that the GOP shouldn’t get a free ride via airtime provided to Rush, Hannity, et al?
I guess they think the invisible hand of the market can only be right-handed.
Time for the FEC to investigate Fox “News” for all of the in kind contributions they make to the Repub party.
Okay, take your foot off the gas on this one. You do realize the NYT needs every penny of ad revenue it can take. Thats how newspapers stay in business -not by what Tom Friedman writes.
Let it play out. I want to see how many wingnut bloggers may or may not drop TEH CHEETO BAG!!@!@121211!!!
Oliver: Every time you repeat one of these things, you’re.. you know.. REPEATING IT.
It’s absurd. Let it go. There are other things to talk about.
You know, that is one of the silly mentalities pushed by people on the left. As if me writing about it holds even close to the power of a cable net or broadcast news. Gimme a break. I write about what’s in the news and its in the news. The idea that we shouldn’t even write about something, even in ridicule, is the height of scardey-catness.