And Times’ stock continues to plummet. It hit a year low, today.

******

Allah updates with this:

New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis tells me that it’s Times policy to not “disclose the rate that any one advertiser pays for an ad. The rate that is charged for an ad will depend on a variety of factors including how frequently the advertiser advertises with us, the day of the week, is it color, is it black and white, what section it appears, all of those kinds of things.”…

Mathis points out that on September 11, 2007, “we published a full-page advertisement from Freedom’sWatch.org, an organization whose view is opposite of MoveOn.org.”

Freedom’s Watch spokesman Matt David, however tells me the group was charged “significantly more” than MoveOn.org for its ad. The organization says it plans to run a response to the MoveOn.org NYT ad in the Times, “and we plan to demand the same ad rate they paid,” David says.

Don’t hold your breath.

******

H/t Hot Air. Mucho props to Bob Owens for catching this. The NYPost now confirms the speculation:

The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org’s ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq…

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.”

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad – a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday…

Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.

It’s not like Moveon.org can’t afford the full price. They swing so much money that even powerful Democratic Congressmen/women are afraid to piss them off. They spent over $100,000 just railing against John McCain, last year alone. They could well afford the full price. So, why the discount?

Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the “family discount.”

Yep. Of course, the NYT is free to give a discount of any amount to whomever they wish. They’re a business. But they’re also a business that claims to be “objective” and non-partisan. However, by giving a 2/3 discount to a Liberal group, but charging a Conservative group with less funding more, they can’t claim they’re unbiased.