The New York Times’ Public Editor Clark Hoyt has looked extensively at the issue of the infamous “General Betray Us” ad MoveOn.org ran and today the “gray lady’s” corporate hair should be getting a bit grayer, its corporate face bit redder — amid a controversy that has clearly damaged the Times‘ once lofty “brand name.’

Unless you’ve been visiting Venus for a few weeks, the MoveOn.org ad unleashed a firestorm of criticism from conservatives, Republicans, President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney — but also from many in the center and even on the left.

On this website, we ran THIS POST and THIS POST noting that the ad’s language had no place in American discourse and also would boomerang and bite Democrats supporting, endorsing or enabling it on the political butt.

But now Clark Hoyt, the paper’s public editor (DISCLAIMER: He was my managing editor when I worked at Knight-Ridder’s Wichita Eagle-Beacon in the early 80s) has blasted his newspaper in a column called “Betraying Its Own Interests”. The explanation of what happened indicates MoveOn WAS indeed given a DISCOUNT that violated the paper’s own rules — but newspaper officials told Hoyt (who has long had an EXCELLENT reputation as a straight-shooter no matter where he worked) that it was an error.

Here’s the crux of his conclusions, at the end of his piece, which needs to be read in full:

[Steph] Jespersen, director of advertising acceptability, reviewed the ad and approved it. He said the question mark after the headline figured in his decision.

The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially. Jespersen has rejected an ad from the National Right to Life Committee, not, he said, because of its message but because it pictured aborted fetuses. He also rejected an ad from MoveOn.org that contained a doctored photograph of Cheney. The photo was replaced, and the ad ran.

Sulzberger, who said he wasn’t aware of MoveOn.org’s latest ad until it appeared in the paper, said: “If we’re going to err, it’s better to err on the side of more political dialogue. … Perhaps we did err in this case. If we did, we erred with the intent of giving greater voice to people.”

THAT QUOTE will get the Times in more hot water. Yes, it is vital to give a greater voice to people. But the words “Betray Us” didn’t add anything to the debate or help MoveOn or war opponents. In fact, it probably hurt (see below). MORE:

For me, two values collided here: the right of free speech — even if it’s abusive speech — and a strong personal revulsion toward the name-calling and personal attacks that now pass for political dialogue, obscuring rather than illuminating important policy issues. For The Times, there is another value: the protection of its brand as a newspaper that sets a high standard for civility. Were I in [Steph] Jespersen [the executive who approved the ad’s] shoes, I’d have demanded changes to eliminate “Betray Us,” a particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.

And, indeed, it was the context, not simply the words that created the furor. But did it help? In the end, Republicans and the White House got a lot of mileage out of the ad which provoked rightful and deserved condemnation from many parts of the political spectrum.

And GOPers in Congress managed to press a successful vote to condemn the ad. So, in 2008, Democrats who voted “yes” could face the ire of progressive Democratic voters and those who voted “no” could lost some of the votes from outraged Americans. Both parties need voters who aren’t only from their own parties to win. Writes Hoyt:

By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the “liberal media.”

And what are the details about the (in)famous discount?

Eli Pariser, the executive director of MoveOn.org, told me that his group called The Times on the Friday before Petraeus’s appearance on Capitol Hill and asked for a rush ad in Monday’s paper. He said The Times called back and “told us there was room Monday, and it would cost $65,000.” Pariser said there was no discussion about a standby rate. “We paid this rate before, so we recognized it,” he said. Advertisers who get standby rates aren’t guaranteed what day their ad will appear, only that it will be in the paper within seven days.

Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said, “We made a mistake.” She said the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then. She added, “That was contrary to our policies.”

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of The Times and chairman of its parent company, declined to name the salesperson or to say whether disciplinary action would be taken.

It is indeed HIGHLY possible and PROBABLE that it happened this way.

The fact is, in 21st century America partisans on both sides give absolutely no benefit of the doubt to the other and jump on something immediately to advance their agendas (to discredit and demonize the other side). If you’ve worked in a big corporation (as I did under Hoyt and later for the San Diego Union which is owned by Copley Press) you know mistakes DO happen.

Most newspapers don’t have evil ideologues sitting in a room upstairs pressing buttons trying to find out a way to use their newspapers to screw those they don’t like in coverage and ad placement.

The word Hoyt has not used, though, needs to be used.

If Hoyt’s account is true — and given his track record for accuracy and integrity I am certain it is — some folks at the Times are guilty of virtual negligence.

And for that the gray lady will be grayer — because once you seriously damage a “brand name” it’s hard to get perceptions back to where they are.

What’s mind-boggling is that in this highly politicized, polarized, people-looking-for-a-rant atmosphere someone at the Times could approve such language without anticipating that it would trigger howls of protest — not just from Republicans, conservatives and the White House but from all Americans who also decry and condemn any kind of political hate speech — such as administration’s and some Republicans’ attempt to brand war critics as enablers of terrorism and/or haters of American troops. That’s as equally inaccurate as “General Betray Us.”

The Times just didn’t run an ad at a discount; it helped perpetuate the seemingly inexorable trend towards lowering the bar for mass-media carried political hate speech.

The Times has suffered a series of bungles and image-shattering scandals the past few years. This won’t help it — and as Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal begins to beef up its news coverage, the Times might do well to look over its shoulder and exercise the kind of care Hoyt recommends.

Somewhere, Rupert Murdoch must be smiling.

BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE IS A CROSS-SECTION OF WEBLOG OPINION:

–Glenn Reynolds aka InstaPundit:

This also leaves some of those who defended the Times’ discounted rate by claiming that the critics didn’t understand the ad business in an awkward position.

–The Democratic Daily:

But let me see if I get this right: because the ad appeared on the right day, and it was on “standby,” the rate for the timing should have been double? But if it had appeared on standby because no one tried to buy the timing, it was the right price? Gee. I guess I fail to see a huge scandalous difference. (But we shall all be shortly disabused, no doubt.)

The whole MoveOn smear has obviously taken place — if not at White House insistence — then certainly with its blessing and tacit approval. Bush’s extreme anger at the MoveOn ad is well documented in the past week, and undoubtedly the additional attack on the New York Times is in keeping with his private version of the “Alien and Sedition Act” of the John Adams Administration.

– Ed Morrissey:

Jesperson insisted that he “erred on the side of public discourse”, and that the question mark at the end of “Betray Us?” made all the difference in the world. Hoyt didn’t buy that argument, calling an accusation of betrayal a “particularly low blow when aimed at a soldier.” I’d argue it this way: if I ran an ad in the Paper of Record that read, “Jesperson — Brain-Damaged Traitor?”, would Jesperson still feel that the question mark made the accusation fair?

The Times got caught with its pants down and its biases exposed. Hoyt not only acknowledges the obvious, he undermines the ridiculous meme that got floated about the standby rate, which the ad itself obviously refutes in its use of “today” when referring to Petraeus’ testimony. Even the Gray Lady can’t dance around that.

—Liberal Values has a detailed post that must be read in full. Part of it:

If the advertising was up to me, I would have also avoided language such as “Betray Us” but it is less clear as to whether others who wish to use such language in an ad should be prevented from doing so. Exact rules could never be written to handle all such potential ads and it is understandable that there could be disagreement even within The New York Times as to whether this particular ad should have been run. Regardless, the Times deserves credit for openly discussing this issue.

….Most Americans, assuming they are even aware of the controversy, will soon forget the ad but the war will not go away. They will realize that, as Bill Richardson wrote, Ad’s don’t kill people, wars do. The conservatives won a Pyhrric victory in the Senate with the resolution condemning the ad. Their supporters may have cheered, but most Americans will look back and question why the Senate was wasting time on such nonsense as opposed to working to get our soldiers home. This example will also be of value the next time conservatives unfairly attack veterans such as John Kerry and Max Cleland and they are forced to explain why they fail to respect their own standards.

–Don Surber:

Note how Hoyt tries to shift the blame on “a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times.” I guess Hillary must have trademarked “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Hoyt’s one more lefty who refuses to accept personal responsibility.

….Face it, the only reason the Times is explaining this is that the ad backfired on MoveOn. Had it worked, the Times would have heralded the free press aspect of it. The Times can run any ad it wants, or not run. It can charge what it wants, although the FEC could cause trouble. But what the Times cannot do is blame its problems on “a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times.” No, the problem is with the Times itself. Just as Paula Jones’s complaint was true, so is this one.