June 28, 2006

Boycott NYT Advertisers
— 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).


I'm sure Michelle won't mind too much if I reprint the list right here. Let the advertisers know you'll be boycotting them and dumping their stock if they continue supporting terrorism.

Corporate Headquarters
Rob Henrickson, CEO
MetLife, Inc.
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
Consumer Electronics
105 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Tel: 1800-SAMSUNG
Fax: 973-601-6001

AMD (American Micro Devices)

Posted by: Ace at 10:07 AM | Comments (34)
Post contains 184 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Thats it! I am never buying anything from following companies again!


Posted by: Tushar D at June 28, 2006 10:12 AM (h76y6)

2 At least write them a letter or email telling them that you are going to boycott due to their association with the NYT.....

Posted by: This&That at June 28, 2006 10:15 AM (MSMPS)

3 How about urging the administration to revoke NYT's press pass?

Posted by: shawn at June 28, 2006 10:19 AM (yp3GE)

4 Microsoft! Shhh...you fool. Gates is listening to every word...ahhhhhhhhhhh

Posted by: JackStraw at June 28, 2006 10:22 AM (J8+2b)

5 This&That ,
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)

6 Well, fortunately, Air France had already lost my business years ago.

Posted by: wiserbud at June 28, 2006 10:39 AM (AQGeh)

7 Center the boycott on the studios advertising their summer movies in the NYT. The effects of the boycott would be easily seen with each weekend's box office results. Consumers would not even have to completely boycott a given movie, just the first two weeks of release. There may even be some free advertising should a flop be rationalized as the result of a conservative backlash against the NYT's actions.

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)

8 Let's also consider the NYT's subsidiaries. Here they are.

Posted by: Brett Bullington at June 28, 2006 11:02 AM (/QYGF)

9 Screwing the NYT and Hollywood at the same time is something I could get behind.

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)

10 Interesting list, Brett. When I saw that they also owned radio stations, I had a brief moment of panic as I though I saw WKRP listed, but it was just my eyes playing tricks on me. Besides, Les Nessman wouldn't have allowed that to happen.

Posted by: sandy burger at June 28, 2006 11:13 AM (K2rlS)

11 My previous list is incomplete in that it focuses media holdings. This Wikipedia page lists additional subsidiaries.

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)

12 Accusing the companies of supporting terrorism seems a bit histrionic to me. Better to just explain the situation to them and intone that public entities are judged by that which they associate themselves with.

Posted by: Jason at June 28, 2006 11:23 AM (sdiMC)

13 Jason,

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)

14 The Times also owns The Boston Globe and the LA Times. Now I'm not saying there is any Townhouse affect here, just sayin.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 28, 2006 11:42 AM (J8+2b)

15 Plagiarist!

Posted by: BrewFan at June 28, 2006 11:42 AM (0AD+O)

16 I don't shop at any of their advertisers but I have stopped buying the paper to read. I will not buy it ever again.
Speaking of reading, Ace, how is the book club coming along?

Posted by: RoyalOak at June 28, 2006 11:49 AM (/hGhX)

17 Apologies for the snark, Jason.

"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)

18 You read and quote Michelle Malkin?? She's just one step above moron!

Posted by: Moon at June 28, 2006 12:02 PM (hIuLs)

19 Well, that puts her ahead of you, doesn't it, Moon Unit?

Posted by: Meekrob at June 28, 2006 12:05 PM (d3avk)

20 Let the advertisers know you'll be boycotting them and dumping their stock if they continue supporting terrorism.What they really do is enrich a company that's inimical to U.S. national security, right? And don't we agree that's bad enough that we don't have to dress it up as supporting terrorism? If one writes in straightforward terms, the executives of the advertisers may say, "We see your point." If we tell them they're "supporting terrorism," I think they'll just roll their eyes and say, "Well, no, we don't support terrorism."

Posted by: Kralizec at June 28, 2006 12:11 PM (m5x6c)

21 On a different subtopic, the New York Post has an electronic edition. Get an exact copy of the New York Post print edition: subscribe to the brand new electronic edition of the New York Post.My attempt to link has been rejected by the comment filter, but here's the URL:


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)

22 So...according to Mike Wallace, warning US soldiers of an imminent ambush would violate journalistic ethics...yet, according to Judith Miller and this Shenon guy, warning terrorists of an impending raid is A-Ok. Do I have that right?

Posted by: Piazzagrrl at June 28, 2006 12:51 PM (V64VZ)

23 That appears to be the ethic, Pizzagrrl. Now come here, you smell like pepperoni and mozerella.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 28, 2006 01:08 PM (Pwzb0)

24 "But any letter to these advertisers should probably not contain such a outre allegation."

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)

25 The NYTs giving away such secrets is not surprising back when this same rottem paper gave away the secrets of a bunker i mean this filthy paper should be boycotted AND I STILL DONT WANT IT IN MY CAGE ITS NOT WORTH ANYTHING SQUARK SQUARK

Posted by: spurwing plover at June 28, 2006 04:17 PM (n7v4a)

26 You mean the New York Times owns a slice of the Boston Red Sox?

This elevates to bastards to a whole new level of traitordom....

Posted by: TaterCon at June 28, 2006 04:25 PM (ViBPz)

27 1. The Ochs/Sulzberger family also owns the Chattanoga Times directly - that's where they got their start in the newspaper business, believe it or not.

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)

28 Jack Straw,
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)

29 Anybody have a list of Los Angeles Times advertisers?

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)

31 "Consumers would not even have to completely boycott a given movie, just the first two weeks of release. "

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+)

32 Cal - you are so not thinking of the children ... kids whose parents make them skip summer movies for "a larger principle" are weird ... trust me - you dent the opening box - knocking it off its projection - and studio marketing execs will eagerly report that the boycott, not their crappy marketing, is 100% responsible... and then who's gonna notice? All the execs that are responsible for the ancillary downstream windows... In short order, you will have an army of midlevel studio execs suddenly realizing that newspaper-based ad spends are not the avenue of choice for connecting with their prospective audience. I'm not quite sure how this would make the country more secure though - lots of New Yorkers will still be able to anticipate dying screaming and all... but rw's ideas about an effective boycott strategy make an effective approach - if getting the Times' attention is the goal - a complete boycott of movies targets not just the studios, but the local theaters as well - you know - the ones that employ your neighbor's kids... Why do you hate kids?

Posted by: waterpick down at July 02, 2006 11:31 AM (zYud2)

33 DVD Ripper for mac and windows os.

Posted by: Ggvre at July 19, 2010 09:35 PM (6TkwZ)

34 Video to iPad Converter-best Video Converter for iPad for Converting Video for iPad with high quality. Guide on How to Convert Videos to iPad and Convert Movies to iPad.Free download best MTS Video Converter/MTS Files Converter for converting mts files without losing quality. It also enables you to capture mts video files.Free downlaod M2TS Video Converter/M2TS File Converter,the best Converter for M2TS, to convert m2ts files to all kinds for formats with high output quality.

Posted by: video ipad converter at November 01, 2010 08:57 PM (cbdOf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
86kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 1.1195 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0736 seconds, 270 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.