.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

McCain campaign bribing commenters

They really don't get it, do they? By offering prizes and gifts for planting pro-McCain comments on big blogs, the McCain campaign has just undermined any and every legitimate McCain commenter out there, turning anything pro-McCain into the equivalent of spam.

posted by mikevotes at 1:30 PM

20 Comments:

  • How is this any different from George Sorros and Moveon paying blogers to forward thier agenda?

    By Blogger Lysander Cadwalader, at 2:38 PM  

  • I didn't know they did.

    However, I would guess bloggers would be far more effective than commenters. I mean, who reads comments on the big blogs when they just turn into flame wars.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 2:51 PM  

  • I guess either could be persuasive.

    How do you feel about the N.Y. Times giving discount rates to Moveon?

    By Blogger Lysander Cadwalader, at 2:59 PM  

  • I don't know all the circumstances of that buy.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 5:33 PM  

  • I would guess that someone who could sniff out McCain's bribing of blogers would certainly be aware of a supposedly unbiased news paper giving discounts to orginizations who forward it's own political agenda. Oh well

    By Blogger Lysander Cadwalader, at 7:02 PM  

  • This is right wing urban legend.

    MoveOn.org was charged the standard rate for a "standby" ad. The "controversy" is that MoveOn.org wanted the ad to run on a specific date, thus not a standby ad. MoveOn.org was subsequently billed, and paid, the adjusted rate for a date-specific ad.

    The ad was purchased through the normal process, just like everyone else. No special consideration was given and the salesman had no idea of the ad's content when quoting the fee.

    This is nonsense.

    Reference

    By Blogger -epm, at 8:16 PM  

  • Lysander, my point was that many media outlets arrange different pricing depending on availability. If it was a Tuesday and they had a full page available Thursday it might be available at a cut rate.


    I always assumed it was kind of a fake issue of someone who didn't understand the business trying to say that the fact that they paid less than walk in full price was something.

    !!!!!

    See, Lusander, EPM's got it. I'm glad you got to feel righteous though. Even when you're wrong you can still get a little rush.

    !!!!!

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 9:27 PM  

  • -emp

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20955146/

    Sorry, no "right wing urban legend" here. The N.Y. Times already admited as much and a simple google search will illuminate that truth further

    Start with this one & get back to me.

    By Blogger Lysander Cadwalader, at 8:00 AM  

  • Mikevotes

    Intelectual vanity somtimes keeps us from seeing the truth. I for one know I am at times guilty of this myself.

    I implore you to read the link I gave to -emp and then to further look into the issue.

    The N.Y. Times was caught with their pants down.

    By Blogger Lysander Cadwalader, at 8:03 AM  

  • Lysander, I appreciate it, I'll read it, but I really don't care enough about this to really get into an extended argument.

    It's a relatively minor thing that I just don't care enough about. Sorry.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 11:15 AM  

  • The NYT gets newsprint at a price that isn't available to you or I, as well. I read in the NYT that the Rangers beat the Twins last night, so I guess I really can't trust their reporting and I must therefore assume that the Twins won, since their sweetheart deal with the paper mills obviously influences all their coverage.

    Heck, it gets even more insidious. Mike gets free hosting and API development from Google through blogger.com, so it's safe to reject everything you read here, I guess.

    But seriously, lysander, you have completely missed the point here.
    If the NYT gave MoveOn a discount rate for an ad saying nice things about the NYT, you may be making a relevant point. Instead you are merely changing the subject.
    I'm betting that you interpreted Mike's post as implying that there was something morally and ethically wrong with the McCain campaign's "rewards programme", so you felt compelled to toss in the "liberals do it, too!" comment.
    He's saying it's counterproductive to pay people to say nice things about you in public, because it makes people think that any nice thing that is said about you is only motivated by compensation.

    The salient issue with the MoveOn ad was it's use of the term "Gen. Betray-Us". Are you seriously proposing that significant numbers of people who already felt
    that Petraeus had betrayed the country were swayed to other side by the putative revelation of the ad rates? "Gee, I thought Petraeus was betraying the country, but since I heard about the rates for the ad, now I'm not so sure". Yeah, that's compelling. And even if it did influence people, you would only be agreeing with Mike's premise.

    The ad rate 'controversy' was, like virtually all wingnut talking points, only effective on those who already agree with you.
    If you already hated and suspected the NYT and MoveOn, it was more "proof". For the rest of us, it was a non-issue.

    By Blogger Todd Dugdale , at 11:38 AM  

  • I know this is probably a dead thread, but I wanted to follow up.

    I read the MSNBC article linked to by lysander and it covers essentially the same thing I said, but more superficially and in less detail.

    The assertion is the NYT gave MoveOn a unique, low-ball rate as a special favor and to promote the famous liberal bias. The exception disproves the rule when you find that the same NYT gave Rudy Guilliani the EXACT SAME RATE for a political ad of his own. Ergo, on secret rate. No special treatment.

    Again, this is tinfoil hat, the press is all a bunch of liberal pinkos out to suppress right-thinking 'Mericans stuff. Really.

    By Blogger -epm, at 4:05 PM  

  • -emp

    Rudy DEMANDED the same rate from the times. They knew they had egg on thier face so they acquiesced.

    http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/giuliani-demands-moveons-new-york-times-ad-rate-2007-09-13.html

    By Blogger Lysander Cadwalader, at 8:32 PM  

  • Todd

    Would it be relevant if the N.Y. Times gave half price ad's for the NRA?

    By Blogger Lysander Cadwalader, at 8:34 PM  

  • mikevotes,

    I'm glad that you will read it, however, I am disappointed that you don’t think it a big deal when an institution like the N.Y. Times disregards the public trust and ignores journalistic integrity by essentially taking sides.

    As I asked Todd; would it be a big deal if they gave the NRA half off rates?

    Journalistic integrity is something we should all demand, Left & Right. Agreed?

    By Blogger Lysander Cadwalader, at 8:42 PM  

  • -emp

    As to the Tin foil hat notion, it would do you well to read this editorial form the Public Editor of the N.Y. Times itself asserting its own liberal bias.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d01e7d8173df936a15754c0a9629c8b63

    Anything else?

    By Blogger Lysander Cadwalader, at 8:56 PM  

  • Just to let everyone know I read their comments.

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 6:50 AM  

  • "Todd

    Would it be relevant if the N.Y. Times gave half price ad's for the NRA?"

    Not relevant to a post about the McCain campaign's payment of "action points" to those who make flattering comments on blogs...no.

    It would be relevant only to your attempt to change the subject. Whether or not liberal bias exists at the NYT is completely beside the point. Mike didn't even link to an article in the NYT. The McCain campaign admits it is "incentivising" positive commentary.

    If Mike were to post an analysis of Bush's failed ME policy, and you were to respond that Ted Kennedy is a drunk, that would be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Regardless of the number of links you could supply to support your claim, Kennedy's putative alcoholism would not be germane, unless you could somehow make a case that Kennedy was responsible for the failure of Bush's ME policy, and it would be a slender thread at that.

    It's only on Fox News that trading unrelated insults is mistaken for discourse.

    By Blogger Todd Dugdale , at 10:02 AM  

  • todd

    I am sorry you do not understand the significance of my position or how it relates to mikevotes original post

    In the interest of good faith I will try with an amalgam of my own position in conjunction of what I understand mikevotes original notion to be:

    When a newspaper that is supposed to present news in an unbiased fashion for all citizens to read allows for anyone side of a position to receive a financial advantage, it turns anything the newspaper has to say into the equivalent of spam.

    Again, I hope this clears things up for you.

    By Blogger Lysander Cadwalader, at 10:11 PM  

  • qzz0613
    cheap jordans
    jordan shoes
    burberry outlet
    cheap jordans
    oakley sunglasses
    canada goose coats
    air force 1
    true religion jeans
    prada sunglasses
    oakley sunglasses

    By Blogger Unknown, at 9:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home