Monday, March 27, 2006
# Posted 11:55 PM by Ariel David Adesnik
They point out that the Times recently accepted $1 million from the government of Sudan as payment for a special eight-page advertising section that spoke glowingly of Sudan's "peaceful, prosperous and democratic future."
Strangely enough, the Times ran an editorial condemning the genocide on the same day it ran the $1 million ad. Was it a show of editorial independence or just an ironic comment on the paper's ignorance?
Anyhow, I found all this out from an e-mail sent out by SaveDarfur.org asking its supporters to send letters of condemnation to the Times, along with a request that they donate the proceeds from the add to relief efforts in Darfur. Sounds reasonable to me. According to a follow-up e-mail, the Times got 2600 letters about its decision to take the money. Why not make that 2601? (1) opinions -- Add your opinion
Good for the Times? $1M less those heartless murderers can spend on ammo. Besides, I don't believe people read the NYT for the ads. ;)Post a Comment
I would have done the same thing. I probably would have put the scathing article right next to the ad, perhaps all around it, though. Page-by-page if it was a full-page ad. The Sudanese gov't has nothing to be proud of.