To Pay Bills, No Genocidal Regime Too Evil for New York Times

Tough times demand tough measures… and a change in policy from last month!

Gotham Gazette reported on a shameless eight page long advertising section in today’s New York Times promoting the nation of Sudan:

While human rights activists and others applaud New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof for his coverage (by subscription) of Sudan, some are appalled at the paper’s business side for accepting an eight-page advertising insert singing the praises of the government of the African nation, which is widely considered responsible for genocide against its own citizens. The supplement lauds Sudan for facing a “peaceful, prosperous and democratic future,” and, according to felixsalmon.com criticizes the media for being “focused almost exclusively on the fighting between rebels and Arab militias.”

FelixSalmon.com reported today that this is not an isolated event for Summit Communications, who partners with the NYT to sell ads:

The company which makes money by taking the prestige of the New York Times and selling it to corrupt third-world governments, has outdone itself today with a “Special Advertising Section” on Sudan in the New York Times, featuring second vice president Ali Othman Taha on the cover. “We have approached the formation of the united government in a spirit of cooperation and partnership,” he says in a big pull-quote.

Summit Communications has a video of their interview with Ali Othman Taha the Vice President of Sudan on this page, HERE.

Sudanese vice-President Ali Othman Taha ( AFP and Islam Online)

Many Sudanese have a much different picture of Sudan than the “spirit of cooperation and partnership” painted by Vice President Ali Othman Taha.

** But, Here is where the story gets even uglier! **

The New York Times explains this months publication policy:

Daily News columnist Lloyd Grove quotes a Times spokesperson as saying the paper took the ad because of “our strong belief that all pages of the paper ” news, editorial and advertising ” must remain open to the free flow of ideas.” But Mickey MacLean at World Views speculates that “it also didn’t hurt that an estimated $929,000 freely flowed into the newspaper’s coffers as a result of the section.”

But, here is how the New York Times answered the same question last month when asked why they would not publish the Muhammad cartoons:

The New York Times and much of the rest of the nation’s news media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols, especially since the cartoons are so easy to describe in words.

Unless of course, it is a dung covered Virgin Mary painting.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning