OxBlog

Monday, March 27, 2006

# Posted 11:55 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

IS THE NY TIMES TAKING BLOOD MONEY? I try very hard to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to levelling accusations at the NY Times. But it seems that the folks at SaveDarfur.org are way ahead of me on this one.

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

Comments:
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. ;)

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.
 
Post a Comment


Home