The New York Times ran a reduced price ad ($64,575) for the Giuliani campaign today attacking a similar ad Monday by MoveOn.org that called General Petraeus "General Betray Us". Guiliani's campaign also chastised Sen. Hilary Clinton for declining to distance herself from the ad. The price of both ads was far below the standard full-page price most often quoted for the Times ($181,000).
Rather late in the discussion, the Times now says that it merely gave MoveOn.org a rate it gives other non-profits if they are willing to let the Times decide what day (within a week's schedule) an ad will appear. That makes sense as a negotiating practice, actually.
However, somehow the MoveOn ad appeared on the very day that General Petraeus testified before Congress and MoveOn.org knew ahead of time that it was running (it told people so). This suggests a certain amount of cooperation that, in fact, negated the whole idea that the "cheap" price was due to scheduling uncertainty.
This raises the question of how cozy the Times was with MoveOn.org and whether the group did, in practice, get special consideration.
However, suspicion about the ads should probably be set aside at this point. Real life often fails to support a suspicious interpretation of events. (Oh, that Times reporters themselves had that attitude more often.) One thing is clear, though, we now know how much a Times full page ad really costs! It is fungible. As I wrote below, in coming months you probably will see a whole parade of candidates and groups taking advantage of the suddenly visible "special" New York Times rate.
