Is the NY Times Guilty of a Crime?

Well, it turns out that they should have charged twice what they did to guarantee to MoveOn.org that the ad would run on a specific date.

The old gray lady has some explaining to do.

Officials at the New York Times have admitted a liberal activist group was permitted to pay half the rate it should have for a provocative ad condemning U.S. Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus.

The MoveOn ad, which cast Petraeus as "General Betray Us" and attacked his truthfulness, ran on the same day the commander made a highly anticipated appearance before Congress.

But since the liberal group paid the standby rate of $64,575 for the full-page ad, it should not have been guaranteed to run on Sept. 10, the day Petraeus warned Congress against a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq, Times personnel said.

"We made a mistake," Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, told the newspaper's public editor.

People are asking the question, did the NY Times commit a crime? If so, what crime?

Glenn Reynolds links to others who comment.

Ann Althouse comments on the NY Times admission that they - in effect - gave MoveOn.org a contribution of over $80,000.

The Times spokeman:

The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially. Jespersen has rejected an ad from the National Right to Life Committee, not, he said, because of its message but because it pictured aborted fetuses. He also rejected an ad from MoveOn.org that contained a doctored photograph of Cheney. The photo was replaced, and the ad ran....

For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if it’s abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues. For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in Jespersen’s shoes, I’d have demanded changes to eliminate “Betray Us,” a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.

Althouse response:

By the way, I'd have allowed them to use the language they wanted. I like to see how people choose to express themselves. It's helpful if it's not watered down for more comfortable consumption. I want to taste the poison so I can spit it out. And free speech is kind of an important value too, you know.

I agree with Althouse on this. If you are going to run an ad by an advocacy group, run the ad they wrote, don't edit it to make it "more acceptable" because that way the group is disguised. The MSM often does this, they edit text and pictures so that their audience does not see the really vile things that the Left says and does.

UPDATE: There's some major ass covering going on by MoveOn.org (being pushed we suspect by their partners in crime at the Times):

Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and
while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by
most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay
that rate for this ad. We will therefore wire the $77,083 difference to the
Times tomorrow (Monday, September 24, 2007).

Chump change for George Soros.