MoveOn.org, The New York Times and sweetheart deals.

By now everyone whose not hiding in a "spiderhole"(and even most of those who are) have seen the New York Times Ad by MoveOn.org attacking General Petraeus. While it was clear from the start that the ad was a cowardly, despicable, and typically inane attack on a man who has served his country in one of the most dangerous professions in the world, what has only recently become clear is that the Ad in question was actually subsidised in part by the "Grey lady" itself. To those who haven't heard, the standard ad rate fro a full poge ad in the NYT is roughly $175,000, whereas MoveOn.org paid only $65,000.
I'm not qualified to discuss whether or not this constitutes a breach of journalistic ethics, or whether or not thsi would violate existing laws or regulations (and in fact if it does they should be changed IMO. While I diagree with their perspective, the only ones who should have the right to do anything about this are the suscribers, who can vote with their wallets, and the shareholders) its easy to see that the claims of "impartiality and objectivity" made by the Times are utter bullshit. To put it simply a for-profit company does not subsidise ideas to the detriment of profit unless those running said company agree so wholheartedly that they are willing to forgoe said profit in order to advance said idea.
While this incident should not IMO be used to justify further restrictions on politcal speech, it should be used as a counter anytime the "grey lady" attempts to portray itself as "unbiased"