OxBlog

OxBlog

Front page
XML Feed

Read Our

"Love your site" -- Dan Savage

"A great read" -- Fareed Zakaria

"I enjoy OxBlog very much" -- Michael Barone

OxBlog: Trying to live up to the hype since April 23, 2002!

David Adesnik, a research analyst in Washington DC, received his doctorate in international relations from Oxford.

Email David

The Media:
NYT
WaPo
OpinionJournal
TNR
Weekly Standard
NRO
Slate
Commentary
BBC

Other Blogs We Like:

George Washington:
InstaPundit

James Wilson:
Brett Marston
Volokh Conspiracy

Alexis de Tocqueville:
American Scene
Crescat Sententia
Crooked Timber
Galley Slaves
Eve Tushnet
Christopher Hitchens

Theodore Roosevelt:
Amygdala
Belgravia Dispatch
Phil Carter
Joyful Christian
Joe Gandelman
Adrianne Truett
Winds of Change
Pejman Yousefzadeh
Global Guerrillas

Calvin Coolidge:
ScrappleFace

Winston Churchill:
Sasha Castel
Innocents Abroad
Andrew Sullivan
Tim Blair

Franklin Roosevelt:
Kevin Drum
Josh Marshall
Matt Yglesias
Democracy Arsenal
Dan Nexon

David Ben Gurion:
GedankenPundit
Kesher Talk

Friedrich Hayek:
Jane Galt
Virginia Postrel
Natalie Solent
VodkaPundit
Matt Welch

Ronald Reagan:
Power Line
RealClearPolitics
Worldwide Standard
RedState
Liz Mair

Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
Daniel Drezner
How Appealing

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?

(2) 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.

# posted by

Anonymous : 10:40 AM

Great info, really helpful for those starting to build a link profile. Highly appreciate your efforts in sharing this article.
IT Services In Ahmedabad

# posted by

Aditi Jain : 3:38 AM

Home