A lot of media time and money has been spent on publishing various opinions on the war in Iraq.

A Sept. 10 MoveOn.org advertisement that attacked General David Petraeus is still in the hot seat after it ran in The New York Times the same day Petraeus appeared in front of Congress and warned against a rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The ad featured the headline “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

It was revealed MoveOn.org was given a substantial monetary discount for the ad. The New York Times admitted the $77,508 error in the charge for the advertisement, blaming an entry-level advertising executive who should have given MoveOn.org a price break or a guaranteed run date, but not both. According to Sunday’s New York Times, MoveOn.org recently paid the difference. But money was not the main issue.

“This ad sparked a lot of controversy,” said Mack Shelley, university professor of political science and statistics. “It was a very calculated gamble on their [MoveOn.org’s] part.”

Shelley said Americans statistically have faith in the military and this ad was essentially viewed as an attack on the U.S. military.

“The use of ‘Betray Us’ in the ad, I believe, was what a lot of citizens were upset about,” Shelley said. “It came across as an attack on the military.”

According to the MoveOn.org Web site, the language of the ad was intended to be both hard-hitting and catchy. The Web site said the mainstream media gives the kind of analysis with which some of us feel more comfortable, but doesn’t generate enough attention or news coverage to shift the debate.

Phrases like “General Betray Us” are “sticky,” according to MoveOn.org – that is, they get repeated again and again in the media because they are so memorable. It was precisely because the ad was controversial and the language in it was “sticky” that the allegations at its core were widely discussed.

Alex Tuckness, associate professor of political science, said there was nothing unethical about the advertisement.

“The New York Times exercised their right to a free marketplace of ideas,” Tuckness said. “It is very hard to prove that someone intended to harm your reputation.”

Tuckness said newspapers are free to print ads that express ideas that are not always the thoughts of all its readers. Money plays a big part in advertising, and those with the money are the ones who usually get the space. Accepting and printing ads like the MoveOn.org ad does not constitute what that particular paper is all about.

“They just have the money to be able to back up their opinions,” Tuckness said.

The Times is no stranger to controversial advertisements.

In a 1964 case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which came during the height of the Civil Rights movement, the Times ran an advertisement that included statements, some of which were false, about police action allegedly directed against students who participated in a civil rights demonstration and against a leader of the civil rights movement.

Respondents in Alabama brought a suit against the Times and the state supreme court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The Times appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower court’s ruling was overturned.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling stated that “expression does not lose constitutional protection to which it would otherwise be entitled because it appears in the form of a paid advertisement.”

The Supreme Court found that factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless “actual malice” – knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth – is alleged and proved.

The Supreme Court found that The New York Times did what the freedoms of the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee.