A parade of cut-rate ads for politicos and causes--accompanied by all kinds of controversy--probably has been avoided now as The New York Times admits that it mishandled the "General Betray Us" ad by MoveOn.org. The impetus was a column by the Times' ombudsman; however, it could not have been entirely unwelcomed by management, which has found itself facing criticism for unfairly giving a more than 50 percent price reduction for the cuttting political ad, and also facing a likely demand from a string of candidates and others for comparable price breaks. Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani was only the first in line to take advantage of the hole the paper shot in its own ad policies (and hats off to him for doing so at once).
So "The $64,000 Question" that I asked earlier has been answered. How cozy was The Times with MoveOn.org in giving a special rate and a set date for the "General Betray Us" ad? The answer is...very. The timing concession was one indication. But another is the publisher's rueful statement that whatever mistakes were made, it is important to keep in mind the important goal of encouraging robust public speech. That seems like an attempt to offer at least a partial excuse for the decision to print the ad, even though it contradicted The Times' policy on price, timing and ad hominem content and put competitive points of view at a disadvantage.
So one cannot now assume, after all, that the ad's acceptance and placement was just an accident. Contrary to what I was prepared to grant, one probably can assume bias was involved. The very fact that The Times didn't acknowledge any error for days gives credence to that conclusion, and so now do Mr. Zulzberger's comments.
The paper should be embarrassed and should apologize. (What a thought for a newspaper that routinely demands apologies from others!)
Meanwhile, what The Times did importantly accomplish for itself was the refreshment of a rationale for keeping further political ads at reduced rates out of the paper.