It took just 286 words and a black and white photograph of the senior American military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, to place The New York Times, the nation’s inimitable “Gray Lady,” in the center of a heated controversy over the current penchant in politics for personal attack ads and the ethical standards of modern media.
The uproar began after MoveOn.org, the liberal political action committee founded in 1998 to protest the impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton, placed an advertisement in the September 10th edition of The New York Times titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” with the sub-headline “Cooking the Books for the White House.” Running on the day that Petraeus began his testimony at a United States House hearing on the progress of the war in Iraq, the advertisement alleged that Petraeus had been intentionally misleading the American government and public about the state of the war for years, making the situation in Iraq sound better than it actually was. It concluded with the implication that Petraeus’ future testimony will be similarly riddled with falsehoods and should not be trusted, stating, “Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.”
Despite The New York Times’ staunch defense of this advertisement, it was immediately denounced by Republicans and Democrats alike, with the President calling it “disgusting” from the White House podium and Massachusetts Senator John Kerry describing it as “simply over the top, and I think it's inappropriate, period” on MSNBC. Ultimately, the Senate voted 72-25 on September 20th to condemn the MoveOn.org advertisement, and the House followed suit six days later, attaching a statement condemning the attack on Petraeus to the stopgap spending bill that passed 404-14. Both houses of Congress charged the ad with being too personal in nature. Rather than accomplishing its goal of sparking real debate over the course of the war in Iraq, it shifted focus away from the content of Petraeus’ testimony, further stifling any possibility for a substantive political dialogue about the role that America should play in Iraq.
In addition, as The New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt has pointed out, the inclusion of the ad in the newspaper violated The New York Times’ own advertising acceptability standards, which state that “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” To those who would argue that the ad is merely an expression of free speech and is thus protected as such by the First Amendment, this is undoubtedly true. However, its protection by the Constitution does not translate into a mandate that it be included in a private newspaper with ethical standards of its own to uphold.
As if this situation was not already enough of a debacle for The New York Times, it was announced on September 20th that it had been discovered that MoveOn.org had received a considerable discount on the running of the now infamous ad. Paying the standby rate of $64,575, they should have merely received a guarantee that their ad would be run within the seven days following payment. However, they were told that the ad would be run on the date that they specifically requested, which was September 10th, meaning that they should have paid $142,083.
This revelation prompted an admission of error by Vice President of Corporate Communications for The New York Times Company Catherine Mathis, who said that the advertising saleswoman who dealt with MoveOn.org left the group with the impression that the ad would run on their desired date, rather than at any time during the next week. To MoveOn.org’s credit, they did pay The New York Times the remaining $77,508 for the cost of the ad.
Unfortunately, The New York Times’ only forthcoming apology was for the mistaken price that was quoted to MoveOn.org for the placement of their ad. Never apologizing to General Petraeus for the inclusion of an ad that severely attacked his personal integrity, The New York Times is only giving the American public further support for its disillusionment with the current political arena, which largely prizes personal attacks over substantive dialogue.
Comments