The blog bigotry (blogotry) of the MSM continues, as the New York Post cribs Butt Plug Bob’s* post on Confederate Yankee to come to the same (implied) brain dead conclusion — that the New York Times collaborated with MoveOn.org on the now-infamous ad.
[*for origin story, see “Butt Plug Bob Rides Again“]
After all, Republican slimeballs would NEVER besmirch a decorated combat veteran, right? And they would NEVER make fun of someone’s name (“The Goracle,” “Hitlery,” “OsamaObama,” “The Magic Negro” et al, ad infinitum).
Which is why their panties seem to be in a bunch. We’ll get back to that, but I want to talk about blog bigotry for a short moment. The simple fact is that when a blogger breaks a story, makes an observation, finds an important bit of evidence, the MSM seem to find it perfectly acceptable to STEAL that without attribution, AS IF they had some right, but will scream bloody murder if the situation is reversed.
This is part and parcel of the imbecilic attempt to marginalize, to discredit, to besmirch and smear bloggers as ill-educated weirdos without any decent personal hygene.
Brain-dead because blogs are here to stay, and have a track record that stands up quite favorably in comparison to the ofttimes unprofessional, credulous and irresponsible reporting that has characterized the MSM since AT LEAST the 2000 election (which was revealed, last week, to have been shamefully reported in violation of every tenet of professionalism in journalism). So, it is unsurprising that what Butt Plug Bob came up with three days ago should make it to the New York Post‘s front page today. Way to go you “superior” media! Odd though it seems that I would defend BPBob, he DESERVES the credit for coming up with this brain-dead attack.
The Post deserves credit only for being brain-dead enough to steal it without attribution:
LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR ‘BETRAY US’ AD
By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief
September 13, 2007 — WASHINGTON – The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org’s ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Headlined “Cooking the Books for the White House,” the ad which ran in Monday’s Times says Petraeus is “a military man constantly at war with the facts” and concluded – even before he testified before Congress – that “General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.”
According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.”
A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad – a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.
A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.
Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.
Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the “family discount.”
“I’m surprised they had to pay anything at all for the ad,” the GOP staffer said. “They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn’t have cost them a cent.”
Now, to be unfair — which is the Post‘s point — no mention is made of the fact that newspaper ads are discounted ALL THE FRIGGING TIME, as anyone familiar with the industry knows. Working for Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, Mr. Hurt can certainly be excused for his ignorance of the workings of legitimate newspapers, but NOT for his unwillingness to educate himself. In other words, this is a straight up attempt to smear the Times for supposedly smearing Petraeus, by a gang to whom the vicious smear is mother’s milk.
The logical version of the smear goes like this:
- MoveOn (gasp) made fun of someone’s name. (Please ignore the sensible and cogent REST of the ad, just focus on the headline to the exclusion of all else. This was how they got Dan Rather fired for a truthful news story about George Bush’s astonishing contortions and lawlessness in avoiding the Vietnam draft — service in whose war, you should note, was smeared and slandered for John Kerry at the SAME TIME — An astonishing contribution to the Big Lie Hall of Fame).
- This is a bad thing and doesn’t support the troops and is one ‘a them “defeatocrat” things.
- Because the New York Times gave them a “big” discount, that means that the New York Times would have (see GOP staffer quote) WRITTEN the ad, had not MoveOn beat them to the punch. Evidently the discount was some form of penance (it is implied) from the Times.
- Therefore, the New York Times doesn’t support the war or the troops.
Note that this is all Reptile Brain stuff, and by implication, so I’m just reconstructing the illogical attack as best I can. It’s not actually reporting. It’s not even news. It’s straight up propaganda. From a Rupert Murdoch paper. In other words, it’s a ‘dog bites man’ story, but deserves some small mention, if only as a quantification of means, methods, and plagiarized sources.
The “reportage” of this column consists of
- Getting an ANONYMOUS Republican staffer to say rotten things. (Gee, wasn’t the big brouhaha over Beauchamp that he was anonymous?)
- A couple phone calls to confirm (retail) ad rates. (Retail? RETAIL??! They live in New York City and expect anybody to pay RETAIL? Oy.)
- No attempt to contact the other side for response, and …
- gee, I wonder if some disconnected, out-of-context journalistic ethics “expert” can be contacted, like they did for Beauchamp, to pontificate about the “ethics” of offering MoveOn discounts? Was Bob Steele unavailable?
Hmm. I guess it was too much trouble.
Don’t bother using the term “hypocrites.” Not only doesn’t it faze them in the least, but generally, they can’t spell it.
Check out Memeorandum for more. The rightie blogs and newspapers (Washington Times) are all over this “scandal.” (Get your shock absorbers gassed up. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride. Hell, Butt Plug Bob is still flogging the Beauchamp story — and begging for money for doing it).
- Jim McElhatton / Washington Times: MoveOn marshals money against GOP
- Allahpundit / Hot Air: Confirmed: NYT gave MoveOn almost two-thirds off on “Betray Us” ad
- Mcq / QandO: NYT DISCOUNTED MOVEON PETRAUS AD
- Sweetness & Light: NYT Gave $116K Discount For “Betray Us” Ad
- Jules Crittenden: NYT Lies, People Will Die
- Shaun Mullen / The Moderate Voice: (Updated) A Memo to MoveOn.Org: Cut the Crap. It’s Time To Move On
- Sister Toldjah: Question of the day — Why did the NYT slash $116,000 off …
- Shaun Mullen / Kiko’s House: Memo to MoveOn: Time to Move On
Or, never give a dead horse an even break. Just keep flogging it.
UPDATE — 11:00 AM PDT: The piling-on continues, with the Weekly Standard giving Butt Plug Bob his credit (thanks for the multiple confirmation) — along with Butt Plug Bob taking credit for it himself, and the Captains Quarters weighing in (among others). Funny, the whole Pajamas Media gang is here, and it’s clearly being coordinated at some level — to a specific political end. Hmm.
The astute reader will recall the White House running conference calls with CQ (and unnamed other bloggers) to coordinate strategy. Here’s the original story from Raw Story. Think about it, and come up with your own conclusions as to how involved the White House is, in creating these false firestorms in the Rightie blogosphere, almost invariably starring The Usual Suspects (seen here selling hate T-shirts).
And that crap pseudo-Doonesbury Kartoon of the Right, “Day by Day”* has jumped into the MoveOn controversy, just like they jumped into the Beauchamp one. Comic? Or straight up agit-prop? (* Basically, chicks-showing-tits while making rightie talking points).
So, is this phony war on the MoveOn ad (and now the New York Times AD RATES !!?!?!) that’s included House minority leader John Boehner, Moonie paper The Washington Times, Murdoch paper The New York Post and the Pajamas Media bloggers … er, coordinated through the White House? Originating from the White House to provide cover for a failed “surge” and a phony troop withdrawal? Or is it all just a big coincidence? Hmmmm.