June 28, 2006
— Ace At the end of this post, Michelle names a bunch of them.
The post also recounts how Times reporters tipped off the terrorist-linked Holy Land Foundation to an imminent federal raid. Having been tipped off, they immediately began destroying and evacuating evidence from their offices.
The Paper of Treason (TM).
Rob Henrickson, CEO
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Margaret M. Foran, Senior Vice President,
235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017.
Corporate Headquarters 2001 Edmund Halley Drive
Reston, VA 20191
Dong-Jin Oh President & CEO
105 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
AMD (American Micro Devices)
VAN CLEEF & ARPELS
Posted by: Tushar D at June 28, 2006 10:12 AM (h76y6)
Posted by: This&That at June 28, 2006 10:15 AM (MSMPS)
Posted by: shawn at June 28, 2006 10:19 AM (yp3GE)
Posted by: JackStraw at June 28, 2006 10:22 AM (J8+2b)
in case you are replying to me, sorry I neglected to add enough layers of sarcasm.
Posted by: Tushar D at June 28, 2006 10:26 AM (h76y6)
Posted by: wiserbud at June 28, 2006 10:39 AM (AQGeh)
Everyone goes to the movies to some extent, and every week the numbers get reported. The studios allocate large amounts of money for advertising and are a class of advertiser whose product is especially susceptible to a consumer boycott. If one movie has a loss of ticket sales attributable to the boycott, then the other studios should fall in line quickly to avoid putting their products at similar risk.
For a boycott of the NYT to be successful, it would have to target specific advertisers whose products one realistically uses and can practically avoid.
Posted by: rw at June 28, 2006 11:00 AM (aVixU)
Posted by: Brett Bullington at June 28, 2006 11:02 AM (/QYGF)
Actually, I've already started screwing Hollywood and have drastically cut back my movie going.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 28, 2006 11:12 AM (JuWpl)
Posted by: sandy burger at June 28, 2006 11:13 AM (K2rlS)
Sandy, I was a bit startled to find that WHNT, one of my local TV stations, is owned by the Times. Unfortunately, I already sent them a piss-off letter a long time ago.
Posted by: Brett Bullington at June 28, 2006 11:18 AM (/QYGF)
Posted by: Jason at June 28, 2006 11:23 AM (sdiMC)
Sorry to have so distressed you, yet again. Let me call you a Waaaahmbulance.
Posted by: ace at June 28, 2006 11:36 AM (h7Mal)
Posted by: JackStraw at June 28, 2006 11:42 AM (J8+2b)
Posted by: BrewFan at June 28, 2006 11:42 AM (0AD+O)
Speaking of reading, Ace, how is the book club coming along?
Posted by: RoyalOak at June 28, 2006 11:49 AM (/hGhX)
"supporting terrorism" is a tough and tendentious charge, but these companies are supporting a company which in turn provides vital intelligence to our enemy, in a war in which intelligence is particularly important.
But any letter to these advertisers should probably not contain such a outre allegation.
Posted by: ace at June 28, 2006 11:55 AM (h7Mal)
Posted by: Moon at June 28, 2006 12:02 PM (hIuLs)
Posted by: Meekrob at June 28, 2006 12:05 PM (d3avk)
Posted by: Kralizec at June 28, 2006 12:11 PM (m5x6c)
The Wall Street Journal has an online subscriber's edition, too; however, using the WSJ as an alternative to the New F#ck Times is problematic, since after all, they published their own version of this story.) It seems building up the subscriber base of competitive papers would give advertisers alternatives to the old, grey b1tch, especially if one mentioned in a letter that one has a new subscription.
Posted by: Kralizec at June 28, 2006 12:26 PM (m5x6c)
Posted by: Piazzagrrl at June 28, 2006 12:51 PM (V64VZ)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 28, 2006 01:08 PM (Pwzb0)
That was my point. Any letter of that sort will undoubtedly come across as crazy and people don't listen to the protestations of crazy people.
Posted by: Jason at June 28, 2006 03:37 PM (gNw0L)
Posted by: spurwing plover at June 28, 2006 04:17 PM (n7v4a)
This elevates to bastards to a whole new level of traitordom....
Posted by: TaterCon at June 28, 2006 04:25 PM (ViBPz)
2. So many of the nyt's listed advertisers are companies that make totally over-the-top luxury goods. When I see that I think that the nyt is just the mouthpiece for the overclass's never-ending war on the country which has given them so much. Truly bizarre.
Posted by: max at June 28, 2006 04:30 PM (SO3B1)
You're right about the NYT owning the Boston Globe, but unless I'm mistaken, the Tribune Company owns the LA Times.
Posted by: Sean M. at June 28, 2006 05:03 PM (dc5zY)
Posted by: Mary in LA at June 29, 2006 06:53 AM (JYxmy)
rw is right on target with the suggestion to focus on film advertising. The audience of the NYT is already a demographic mismatch for the majority of summer films, and the money studios spend with the paper is increasingly difficult to rationalize. The Internet is far and away the principal source of information for the summer movie crowd.
Studios have already begun cutting back on the number of full-page prestige ads that they buy in both the LA Times and the NYT (ht: Nikke Finke), and it's just a matter of time before these high-dollar ads become a complete and never-to-be-replaced anachronism. We can help speed this along.
Also - rw is correct in saying that a complete boycott is not necessary if there's something that's a must-see for you this summer: after the second weekend, the split between the theaters and the studios begins to increasingly favor the theaters, so studios are sensitive both to a decrease in opening box office as well as to a diminution of the return on studio rentals.
Posted by: waterpick down at July 01, 2006 06:52 PM (zYud2)
Yeah, it's not like the boycott should involve even a minor sacrifice for some larger principle.
Posted by: Cal Lanier at July 02, 2006 02:43 AM (/zcK+)
Posted by: waterpick down at July 02, 2006 11:31 AM (zYud2)
Posted by: Ggvre at July 19, 2010 09:35 PM (6TkwZ)
Posted by: video ipad converter at November 01, 2010 08:57 PM (cbdOf)
62 queries taking 1.0736 seconds, 270 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.