New York Times Comes Clean on 'Betray-Us' Flap

In a stunning admission of sorts, the New York Times has come clean about the now-infamous 'General Betray-Us' ad it ran in the paper from Moveon.org. Without outright admitting to mistakes, the newspaper's ombudsman stated the Times had 'apparently' violated its own internal rules and standards about refraining from running personal attack ads.

Further, the newspaper admitted that it may have 'crossed a line' when it gave Moveon a massive discount for running an ad that was obviously purely political in nature.

According to news sources Moveon.org paid the Times a mere $65,000 for a full-page ad. Under normal conditions such an ad would cost roughly $70,000 more.

Moveon.org immediately responded to the ombudsman report by stating it would sent to the Times the extra $70,000 for the ad, plus an additional lump sum for whatever reason Moveon thinks it necessary to try to amend its reputation.

Obvious troubling questions arise from the 'Betray-Us' flap regarding the mainstream media's complicity with leftwing political causes, including but not limited to an examination of possible violations of federal law. Campaign finance reform supposedly addressed issues such as unfair advantage. Yet the Times clearly provided such an advantage to Moveon while refraining from offering such sweet deals to conservative groups.

Another glaring question revolves around yet another example of media bias exhibited in this latest furor created by a mainstream media outlet that was caught red-handed in engaging in the very practice for which it denounces radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

For example, is the Times willing to provide, say, the NRA, a full-page ad for $65,000 on the very day that the U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Heller vs. D.C., the case on handgun rights which the District appealed to the high court?

Such an ad would appear when pigs fly. Yet the Times exhibited no hesitation to run such a personal attack ad on the very day that a highly respected and trusted U.S. General gave his testimony before Congress on the progress of the surge in Iraq.

Over the past two decades the Times has disintegrated into such an obvious leftwing political rag that it bears no resemblance to its former glory as the definitive news source in America. No wonder Rupert Murdock wanted the Wall Street Journal along with Dow Jones. The Big Apple needs some balance in its news sources.

A further significant development on Sunday was Hillary Clinton's Sunday morning news talk show blitz to defend her vote in the Senate against condemning the Times ad. Her excuse that she wishes to 'debate the War in Iraq and not some newspaper ad' is stunning in its irrationality.

How does voting to condemn a personal attack on General Petraeus in the New York Times prevent Hillary Clinton in any way from debating the Iraq War?

The fact that the mainstream media failed to ask this question, allowing Hillary's statement to get by without as much as a flinch on the part of most reporters and talking heads speaks volumes about their bias.

Hillary's Democratic colleagues in the Senate, many of whom voted to condemn the ad yet who are highly critical of Bush's handling of the War, do not seem to think their vote takes them away from debating the subject of Iraq one bit.

So why is Hillary going out of her way to steer clear of any criticism of Moveon's ad or of the New York Times for running it? Simply put, she knows on which side her bread is buttered.