John on September 23, 2007 at 2:30 pm
From Wikipedia, the definition of shill:
A shill is an associate of a person selling a good or service, who pretends no association and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage other potential customers, unaware of the set-up, to purchase said good or service.
In the case of the Times, they pretend to be disinterested in the left wing BS MoveOn is selling, but in reality their ombudsman admitted today that they did indeed give MoveOn.org a discount of nearly $100K it should never have received. Beyond that, the ad itself should have set off alarms:
[T]he ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.
Bottom line: the Times gave MoveOn.org the “friend discount” because they agreed with the message. Then they gave Rudy the same rate later in the week to cover their collective asses. They shouldn’t bother. No one is fooled by the Times’ attempt to appear neutral.
[HT: Hot Air]
Category: MSM & Bias |