Appearing on the September 13 edition of "Fox News Live," MRC president and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell questioned the deep 60 percent discount that liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org received for its infamous "Betray Us" ad attacking the honor of Gen. David Petraeus.
Bozell noted that "unless the New York Times can explain itself away and show how this was some incredible coincidence" that the paper is in effect "a co-sponsor of that despicable ad."
Below is a transcript of the interview:
BRENT BOZELL, President of the Media Research Center: Well, let's start from this standpoint. I think that the ad, and most Americans believe, this ad was a despicable attack on the honor of an American military commander who's leading our men and women in a very brave struggle in Iraq. That said the New York Times should have and could have rejected this ad in toto. Now, as to the discount, one can get discounts, but we don't have time to explain how the industry works. But to simplify it, if you get a discount, you surrender one of two things. Either the placement spot in the newspaper or the time. In other words, it runs whenever there's an opening. For this ad to have run in the top spot in the newspaper to run on the exact morning that MoveOn.org needed it to run and then for them to get on top of that a 60 percent discount, it makes it very, very suspicious. This looks to be an in-kind contribution."
BILL HEMMER, host, "Fox News Live": An income [sic] contribution, what is that?
BOZELL: What I'm saying is that unless the New York Times can explain this one away, and by the way, the New York Times has a rich history of doing this kind of anti-war thing in the last three years. Whether it's running doctored pictures, whether it's breaking state secrets, it's doing all sorts of stuff to disrupt this war.
HEMMER: Well, it wasn't as if MoveOn.org was going to walk away and place the ad somewhere else. I mean, the group's got plenty of money, right?
BOZELL: Oh, sure. But you know if you're the New York Times, with an ad like this, first you should not have run it. Secondly, if you did choose to run it, what you should have done is make them pay full price for it the way a conservative would have to pay full price for an ad.
HEMMER: So the fact that that did not happen, does that make the Times complicit in the message in that ad, Brent?
BOZELL: I'm saying unless the New York Times can explain itself away and show how this was some incredible coincidence, the New York Times as far as I'm concerned is a co-sponsor of that despicable ad.
HEMMER: Brent Bozell, thank you for your time. From Washington and the Media Research Center. We'll speak again. Thank you, Brent.