PDA

View Full Version : Ooops, and then there were three...paid WH propagandists


memyselfI
01-29-2005, 12:06 PM
ROFL

Let the apologists spin begin...


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/01/29/officials_say_third_columnist_was_paid_to_promote_bush_policy/


Officials say third columnist was paid to promote Bush policy
Helped HHS push marriage initiative
By Siobhan McDonough, Associated Press | January 29, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Health and Human Services said yesterday that a third conservative columnist was paid to help promote a Bush administration policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

Columnist Mike McManus received $10,000 to train marriage counselors as part of the agency's initiative promoting marriage to build strong families, said Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families.

The disclosure was made as the Government Accountability Office sent a letter to the Education Department yesterday asking for all materials related to its contract dealings with a prominent conservative media commentator.

That department, through a contract with the public relations firm Ketchum, hired commentator Armstrong Williams to produce ads that featured former Education Secretary Rod Paige and promoted President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. The contract also committed Williams, who is black, to provide media access for Paige and to persuade other black journalists to talk about the law.

Federal law bans the use of public money on propaganda.

The Education Department received the GAO letter and is reviewing it, department spokeswoman Susan Aspey said. ''Secretary Spelling has made it very clear she is getting to the bottom of this."

Margaret Spellings started this week, replacing Paige. In a letter to Senators Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, and Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, dated yesterday, Spellings wrote, ''At this point, what I can say is that at a minimum, there were errors of judgments at the Department, and I am diligently working to get to the bottom of it all."

The lawmakers are on a panel that oversees education spending, and their subcommittee is looking into the matter.

Spellings also said the department has directed Ketchum to stop all work under the contract.

Earlier this week, Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists to promote administration agendas. The declaration was prompted by reports that Williams and another columnist, Maggie Gallagher, had been paid by the administration.

None of the columnists had disclosed in their columns their relationships with the administration.

Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper

KCWolfman
01-29-2005, 12:11 PM
Who's apologized for the previous two?

It is wrong, and because efforts are being made by the right entities, it is being investigated.

Chief Henry
01-29-2005, 12:17 PM
[QUOTE=memyselfI]ROFL

Federal law bans the use of public money on propaganda.

/QUOTE]



Uh, whats NPR ?

KCWolfman
01-29-2005, 12:22 PM
ROFL

Federal law bans the use of public money on propaganda.





Uh, whats NPR ?
Good point

CHIEF4EVER
01-29-2005, 01:25 PM
Good point


The LWNJ's are the biggest hypocrites in the world. They are just bitter that their charlatan candididiot lost for the second straight time and they don't have too awful much pull in Congress.

Baby Lee
01-29-2005, 01:34 PM
The difficult thing is, everyone has an opinion. And as the 24 hour news cycle takes over, everyone who wants it has a forum. These stories have a stink to them, but so did the stories of Carville and Begala taking over the Kerry campaign while staying in their chairs on Crossfire. We know we don't want a quid pro quo relationship, where people say things they don't even believe because they are being paid by the government to do so. OTOH, I don't think we want every person who has ever posted an opinion in any public forum being precluded from working for government agencies. People with strong opinions are often the most knowledgeable and capable in the field. Should scientists who receive government dollars be precluded on opining in the public arena on issues such as stem cell research or global warming? How do we differentiate this from Paul O'Neill or Christie Tood Whitman writing a book on their experiences in leadership positions?

Rausch
01-29-2005, 01:48 PM
ROFL

Federal law bans the use of public money on propaganda.


So, no more state of the union address?...

penchief
01-29-2005, 01:59 PM
The difficult thing is, everyone has an opinion. And as the 24 hour news cycle takes over, everyone who wants it has a forum. These stories have a stink to them, but so did the stories of Carville and Begala taking over the Kerry campaign while staying in their chairs on Crossfire. We know we don't want a quid pro quo relationship, where people say things they don't even believe because they are being paid by the government to do so. OTOH, I don't think we want every person who has ever posted an opinion in any public forum being precluded from working for government agencies. People with strong opinions are often the most knowledgeable and capable in the field. Should scientists who receive government dollars be precluded on opining in the public arena on issues such as stem cell research or global warming? How do we differentiate this from Paul O'Neill or Christie Tood Whitman writing a book on their experiences in leadership positions?

There is a H-U-G-E difference between espousing opinions on which you agree with the administration and espousing opinions on which you agree with this administration while on their payroll.

Granted, two of these three have stated that they were payed for their expertise or research. However, they or the White House should have disclosed this CONFLICT OF INTEREST. At the very least, you would expect competent leaders to know the boundries, right?

Having said that, how can anyone deny that a pattern is emerging?

This has always been one of the markers of my criticisms for this administration. Not only do I diametrically disagree with 80% of what they advocate, I am highly agitated by the way in which they go about things. Simply put, they show no respect and they display no couth.

That has been their consistent pattern, IMO.

Baby Lee
01-29-2005, 02:06 PM
There is a H-U-G-E difference between espousing opinions on which you agree with the administration and espousing opinions on which you agree with this administration while on their payroll.
What about NPR?
What about those scientists who signed the petition on global warming?
What about the State of the Union?
What about cabinet officials going on the Sunday talk shows?
What about a local school board member sending a letter to the editor of the paper?

Two things, I think are key, a mechanism for assuring that the opiner is saying things of his/her own free will, and open notice of monetary ties to governmental entities.

KCWolfman
01-29-2005, 02:08 PM
What about NPR?
What about those scientists who signed the petition on global warming?
What about the State of the Union?
What about cabinet officials going on the Sunday talk shows?
What about a local school board member sending a letter to the editor of the paper?

Two things, I think are key, a mechanism for assuring that the opiner is saying things of his/her own free will, and open notice of monetary ties to governmental entities.
They do it with "couth" so penchief can turn a blind eye.

RINGLEADER
01-29-2005, 05:33 PM
No need to spin. Once again your title thread doesn't concur with the facts that you posted. Kind of like yesterday when you claimed "Democratic Arab movements see 'election' as a sham" instead of the more accurate "Jew-hating, Pro-Palestinian spokesmen hope democracy in Iraq fails". Or your claim last week that the number of congressmen and women with children in the armed forces wasn't high enough when it was twice the national average.

penchief
01-30-2005, 03:04 AM
What about NPR?
What about those scientists who signed the petition on global warming?
What about the State of the Union?
What about cabinet officials going on the Sunday talk shows?
What about a local school board member sending a letter to the editor of the paper?

Two things, I think are key, a mechanism for assuring that the opiner is saying things of his/her own free will, and open notice of monetary ties to governmental entities.

The question is not whether they agree (or maybe it is). How do we know that Armstrong Williams wouldn't advocate something that he wasn't completely on board with, but feels obligated because he's sucked a quarter million off that government teet? How do we know that he would have editorialized about this or that, anyway? How do we know that the words and the opinions are truly his? It's bad news no matter how you slice it.

It's all about objectivity. The free press can only stay free if it maintains its objectivity (which is severely being challenged right now). Those governmental leaders who intentionally undermine the objectivity of the press for political reasons pose a threat to our way of life. If it turns out that there was a clear pattern of paying columnists to advocate the government's positions, it would be a bad thing.

Paid advocates of a particular position are supposed to use the "free" objective press as a forum to advocate their positions. That is what it is for. But for a member of the "objective" press to be paid for advocating a political position essentially removes objectivity from the formula, IMO.

Wait a minute, the whole Dennis Miller thing is starting to make sense!

SBK
01-30-2005, 07:09 AM
Is this administration the first to have media on the payroll? I personally don't see a big difference.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/27/114029.shtml

Journalists on Clinton White House Payroll?

Ever since commentator Armstrong Williams admitted he took $280,000 to promote the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind policy, reporters have been pretending that they're "shocked, shocked!" that any journalist would compromise his objectivity so blatantly.

The latest target is marriage expert Maggie Gallagher, who on Wednesday found herself in the crosshairs of Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz. Kurtz was questioning fees she collected for research performed for the Health and Human Services Administration.

Apparently Mr. Kurtz and the rest of the media ethics posse slept through the 1990s, when a number of reporters with much higher profiles than Williams and Gallagher supplemented their incomes with checks from the Clinton White House.

CBS News in particular seemed to have no qualms about some fairly blatant conflicts of interest, having Rita Braver and Linda Douglas cover the White House even though they both had financial relationships with the Clinton administration. Braver's husband, Robert Barnett, who was the Clintons' Whitewater lawyer when Braver was assigned to the White House beat in late 1992, reportedly recused himself from his role as first-family attorney. But in July 1993, Barnett was still up to his eyeballs in the Whitewater scandal, traveling to the White House after Vince Foster's death to collect papers investigators later said had been removed surreptitiously from Foster's office. Barnett continued working for the Clintons in another capacity, as book agent, successfully negotiating $20 million worth of book deals for Bill and Hillary beginning with Mrs. Clinton's 1998 screed, "Dear Socks, Dear Buddy" and continuing through Mr. Clinton's "My Life" last year. Unless Barnett kept his Clinton paychecks isolated from the household budget, Ms. Braver likely benefited from the White House jackpot more than Williams and Gallagher put together times 10!

If Ms. Braver ever mentioned her financial relationship to the White House during her news broadcasts, we missed it. Braver is far from the only high-profile media personality whose spouse was on the Clinton payroll.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper married longtime Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald in November 1997. Hillary Clinton even threw Grunwald a baby shower at the White House in July 1998. At the time Cooper was covering presidential politics for Newsweek.

CNN's Christiane Amanpour married Clinton State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin in August 1998. Though Rubin presumably shared his administration paycheck with his new bride, the financial link was never an issue for the Armstrong Williams posse.

Sometime the cash flowed in the opposite direction. As Byron York reported in 1998, CBS newswoman Linda Douglass [now with ABC] and her husband, an influential public interest lawyer named John Phillips, socialized often with Whitewater scandal figure Webster Hubbell and his wife, Suzy. Within weeks of Hubbell's 1994 resignation from the Justice Department, said York, "Phillips put together a deal by which a California non-profit group paid Hubbell $45,000 to write a series of articles on the idea of public service. "Later, Phillips and Douglass picked up much of the tab when they and the Hubbells flew to Greece for a ten-day vacation cruising the Aegean Sea. They stayed in touch after Hubbell pleaded guilty and even after Hubbell went to prison."

Given examples like these, it would seem that the media ethics police have a lot of catching up to do before continuing the hunt for journalists on the Bush administration payroll.

Baby Lee
01-30-2005, 07:26 AM
The question is not whether they agree (or maybe it is). How do we know that Armstrong Williams wouldn't advocate something that he wasn't completely on board with, but feels obligated because he's sucked a quarter million off that government teet? How do we know that he would have editorialized about this or that, anyway? How do we know that the words and the opinions are truly his? It's bad news no matter how you slice it.

It's all about objectivity. The free press can only stay free if it maintains its objectivity (which is severely being challenged right now). Those governmental leaders who intentionally undermine the objectivity of the press for political reasons pose a threat to our way of life. If it turns out that there was a clear pattern of paying columnists to advocate the government's positions, it would be a bad thing.

Paid advocates of a particular position are supposed to use the "free" objective press as a forum to advocate their positions. That is what it is for. But for a member of the "objective" press to be paid for advocating a political position essentially removes objectivity from the formula, IMO.

Wait a minute, the whole Dennis Miller thing is starting to make sense!

Objective opinion???

How does your head not explode even contemplating that oxymoron?

If you meant independant opinion, that's another thing. But as I've said, I think an impregnable wall between the government and opinion is unworkable and probably not even desirable. Why force people to decide between expressing themselves in the public forum or working for the government? How can you even do that in a fair manner across the board.

penchief
01-30-2005, 08:03 AM
Objective opinion???

How does your head not explode even contemplating that oxymoron?

If you meant independant opinion, that's another thing. But as I've said, I think an impregnable wall between the government and opinion is unworkable and probably not even desirable. Why force people to decide between expressing themselves in the public forum or working for the government? How can you even do that in a fair manner across the board.

Independent might be a better word. There is nothing wrong with having one's own opinion, or even expressing it. But when you are on the government payroll how can your opinion be independent, or even objective? As far as "objective opinions" go, I guess I was attempting to distinguish between an opinion arrived at honestly within one's own mind in a way that one believes he arrived at that opinion by use of objectivity. Democracy and freedom depend on the free press because we need to know that information or even opinions are authentic, as opposed to shilling for a sneaky White House.

The press is the vehicle for which paid advocates advance their positions but the press should not be paid government employees. If the press itself is paid to advocate a message their indepencence and future objectivity is compromised. The press, just like the three branches of government, is a part of the system of checks and balances. This administration has shown little respect for the checks and balances built within our democracy, IMO.

bkkcoh
01-30-2005, 08:14 AM
Story Link (http://newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/29/125846.shtml)


Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Saturday, Jan. 29, 2005 12:53 p.m. EST
Hillary, Daschle Helped Bankroll Dem Radio Hosts
While the media continue their quest to "expose" conservative pundits on the Bush administration payroll, reporters don't seem to have any qualms about the fact that the nation's top elected Democrats helped bankroll liberal commentators on Air America and North Dakota talker Ed Schultz.

Unlike the Armstrong Williams case, there's been no outrage over the fact that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Debbie Stabenow lined up $1.8 million in funding for Democracy Radio, which underwrote Mr. Schultz's show.
According to the Washington Post, Democracy Radio is "a non-profit organization" run by Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, "with a board composed of three Clinton administration veterans." Last year, Sen. Mary Landrieu hosted a fund-raiser for Athans' operation at her Washington, D.C., home, which served as a kind of coming-out party for Schultz and Air America host Randi Rhodes. Clinton, Daschle and 20 other Democrat senators were on hand to encourage party fat cats to open their wallets.
Rhodes described the scene to the New Republic, which reported last February:
"[Florida Sen. Bob] Graham told the crowd about the many Democrats who had replaced Republicans in elected office in South Florida since Rhodes went on the air there; Graham went so far as to proclaim that no Republican could win wherever Rhodes was heard.
"It wasn't long before the money was rolling in," the magazine said.
"I heard people yelling out dollar amounts," Rhodes remembered. "I thought it was two hundred and fifty dollars, but it wasn't. ... They were pledging two hundred and fifty thousand dollars."
Mr. Schultz decided to express his gratitude financially, contributing $2,000 apiece to Democrats Daschle and Sen. Byron Dorgan in last year's campaign.
Like Mr. Williams, Schultz insists that all that cash hasn't influenced his radio show's content, noting that before the election he criticized John Kerry as a terrible presidential candidate.
So it was just a coincidence that when his show debuted in February, Daschle, Clinton and Dorgan were his first on-air guests.
And the fact that he won't discuss his pro-life views on the air has nothing to do with fears that it would anger his Democrat backers. Schultz maintains instead it's "a lousy talk radio topic."
One big difference from the Williams case: Schultz's media friends aren't raising any ethical questions about whether his show's content has been bought and paid for.


Any comment MEME? Or anyone else...

Baby Lee
01-30-2005, 08:21 AM
If the press itself is paid to advocate a message their indepencence and future objectivity is compromised.
It's not that simple.
Columnist Mike McManus received $10,000 to train marriage counselors

Gallagher was paid to; draft an article to be published under the byline of the HHS official overseeing the marriage initiative, draft brochures for the initiative, and to brief department officials on the issues and what objections to expect.

So they weren't being paid to advocate their message in their columns. They were tapped, due to their knowledge and expertise, demonstrated by past columns, to prepare people to carry out the initiative.

That's the point, once you've expressed an opinion in public, what is your use to the body politic? Are you now a pariah, to be scrupulously avoided in order to avoid the appearance of meddling with the op-ed page? Or do you continue to be a citizen, offering your passion and expertise as the administrations needs it?

There is no evidence that these columnists stated anything other than their heartfelt opinions. And there is no evidence that the lied about any factual matter in their op-ed pieces. They're still opinions, just sitting there, waiting to be contemplated and either accepted or rejected based on the readers own dictates of logic and conscience.

mlyonsd
01-30-2005, 08:28 AM
ROFL

Let the apologists spin begin...



Columnist Mike McManus received $10,000 to train marriage counselors as part of the agency's initiative promoting marriage to build strong families, said Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families.



What exaclty does it mean he was paid to train marriage counselors?

penchief
01-30-2005, 08:29 AM
Story Link (http://newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/29/125846.shtml)



Any comment MEME? Or anyone else...


Hey, I'm with you on this one. I think all of it is a threat to the press' independence. I think it is particularly scary when the White House is so adept at propaganda. Between these revelelations and the fake newscasts, one has to begin asking themselves questions about the sincerity of our leaders. It smacks of fascism. I don't like it.

penchief
01-30-2005, 08:36 AM
It's not that simple.


Gallagher was paid to; draft an article to be published under the byline of the HHS official overseeing the marriage initiative, draft brochures for the initiative, and to brief department officials on the issues and what objections to expect.

So they weren't being paid to advocate their message in their columns. They were tapped, due to their knowledge and expertise, demonstrated by past columns, to prepare people to carry out the initiative.

That's the point, once you've expressed an opinion in public, what is your use to the body politic? Are you now a pariah, to be scrupulously avoided in order to avoid the appearance of meddling with the op-ed page? Or do you continue to be a citizen, offering your passion and expertise as the administrations needs it?

There is no evidence that these columnists stated anything other than their heartfelt opinions. And there is no evidence that the lied about any factual matter in their op-ed pieces. They're still opinions, just sitting there, waiting to be contemplated and either accepted or rejected based on the readers own dictates of logic and conscience.

I'm willing to consider the circumstances of each situation. I can see the other side of it. The Williams case is a little more concerning, IMO. Even so, If there are other examples it would also be fair to become more concerned about it. If a pattern does begin to emerge it is only right to ask questions, IMO. One would also be justified in losing trust in what our government says and does.

mlyonsd
01-30-2005, 08:42 AM
Hey, I'm with you on this one. I think all of it is a threat to the press' independence. I think it is particularly scary when the White House is so adept at propaganda. Between these revelelations and the fake newscasts, one has to begin asking themselves questions about the sincerity of our leaders. It smacks of fascism. I don't like it.

Actually the press being involved too much in politics goes way back in American history. I think it was the Jefferson/Hamilton election where a prominent newspaper editor printed stories about one of them having an affair or something when he knew along it wasn't true.

The one positive thing is there is always somebody in the press willing to expose their counterparts political agenda. When the CBS/Dan Rather scandal broke the other networks were schooling like sharks. Eventually most of it gets exposed for what it is.

Baby Lee
01-30-2005, 08:51 AM
Hey, I'm with you on this one. I think all of it is a threat to the press' independence. I think it is particularly scary when the White House is so adept at propaganda. Between these revelelations and the fake newscasts, one has to begin asking themselves questions about the sincerity of our leaders. It smacks of fascism. I don't like it.
I'm really trying to understand you. Is it really your position that; "I agree that people are doing it on both sides and both sides are wrong, but since I don't like the Bush admin, I'll actively limit my focus to their actions?"

stevieray
01-30-2005, 09:37 AM
Hey, I'm with you on this one. I think all of it is a threat to the press' independence. I think it is particularly scary when the White House is so adept at propaganda. Between these revelelations and the fake newscasts, one has to begin asking themselves questions about the sincerity of our leaders. It smacks of fascism. I don't like it.


hahahahahaha///for the last year all you've told us is how incompetent they are, but now claim they are adept at propaganda....

Sitcom writers couldn't do a better job..

RINGLEADER
01-30-2005, 11:34 AM
I'm willing to consider the circumstances of each situation. I can see the other side of it. The Williams case is a little more concerning, IMO. Even so, If there are other examples it would also be fair to become more concerned about it. If a pattern does begin to emerge it is only right to ask questions, IMO. One would also be justified in losing trust in what our government says and does.


I agree with you that the Armstrong Williams situation was stupid because he could have just said that his PR firm was being paid as a consultant to Rod Paige and was doing work for the education department before and after the interview and I doubt this would have been that big a story.

The other two people were being paid to perform a service. And chances are they personally agreed with the positions that the libs want to accuse them of taking only after getting paid for performing other services for HHS.

It is quite hypocritical, however, for Dems to argue that something indecent has occured when the Clinton White House has done the same thing. Could explain why D-Nise has yet again abandoned one of the misleading threads she started.

Michael Michigan
01-30-2005, 11:40 AM
Story Link (http://newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/29/125846.shtml)

Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Saturday, Jan. 29, 2005 12:53 p.m. EST
Hillary, Daschle Helped Bankroll Dem Radio Hosts
While the media continue their quest to "expose" conservative pundits on the Bush administration payroll, reporters don't seem to have any qualms about the fact that the nation's top elected Democrats helped bankroll liberal commentators on Air America and North Dakota talker Ed Schultz.

Unlike the Armstrong Williams case, there's been no outrage over the fact that Sens. Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle and Debbie Stabenow lined up $1.8 million in funding for Democracy Radio, which underwrote Mr. Schultz's show.
According to the Washington Post, Democracy Radio is "a non-profit organization" run by Stabenow's husband, Tom Athans, "with a board composed of three Clinton administration veterans." Last year, Sen. Mary Landrieu hosted a fund-raiser for Athans' operation at her Washington, D.C., home, which served as a kind of coming-out party for Schultz and Air America host Randi Rhodes. Clinton, Daschle and 20 other Democrat senators were on hand to encourage party fat cats to open their wallets.
Rhodes described the scene to the New Republic, which reported last February:
"[Florida Sen. Bob] Graham told the crowd about the many Democrats who had replaced Republicans in elected office in South Florida since Rhodes went on the air there; Graham went so far as to proclaim that no Republican could win wherever Rhodes was heard.
"It wasn't long before the money was rolling in," the magazine said.
"I heard people yelling out dollar amounts," Rhodes remembered. "I thought it was two hundred and fifty dollars, but it wasn't. ... They were pledging two hundred and fifty thousand dollars."
Mr. Schultz decided to express his gratitude financially, contributing $2,000 apiece to Democrats Daschle and Sen. Byron Dorgan in last year's campaign.
Like Mr. Williams, Schultz insists that all that cash hasn't influenced his radio show's content, noting that before the election he criticized John Kerry as a terrible presidential candidate.
So it was just a coincidence that when his show debuted in February, Daschle, Clinton and Dorgan were his first on-air guests.
And the fact that he won't discuss his pro-life views on the air has nothing to do with fears that it would anger his Democrat backers. Schultz maintains instead it's "a lousy talk radio topic."
One big difference from the Williams case: Schultz's media friends aren't raising any ethical questions about whether his show's content has been bought and paid for.



Any comment MEME? Or anyone else...

Here's my thoughts on it:

January 14, 2005

Ed Shultz, the Next Rush Limbaugh or the next Armstrong Williams?

http://www.nationalledger.com/scribe/archives/2005/01/ed_shultz_the_n.shtml

NewChief
01-30-2005, 11:41 AM
Haven't read any of these threads, but is this actually a surprise to anyone? I imagine this sort of thing happens all the time from both sides of the fence.

The problem isn't that it happens. The problem is that people are surprised that it happens. Wake up people.

KCWolfman
01-30-2005, 02:40 PM
I'm really trying to understand you. Is it really your position that; "I agree that people are doing it on both sides and both sides are wrong, but since I don't like the Bush admin, I'll actively limit my focus to their actions?"
Pretty much what I have read from him.

Rep

BroWhippendiddle
01-30-2005, 02:49 PM
Is this administration the first to have media on the payroll? I personally don't see a big difference.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/27/114029.shtml

Journalists on Clinton White House Payroll?

Ever since commentator Armstrong Williams admitted he took $280,000 to promote the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind policy, reporters have been pretending that they're "shocked, shocked!" that any journalist would compromise his objectivity so blatantly.

The latest target is marriage expert Maggie Gallagher, who on Wednesday found herself in the crosshairs of Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz. Kurtz was questioning fees she collected for research performed for the Health and Human Services Administration.

Apparently Mr. Kurtz and the rest of the media ethics posse slept through the 1990s, when a number of reporters with much higher profiles than Williams and Gallagher supplemented their incomes with checks from the Clinton White House.

CBS News in particular seemed to have no qualms about some fairly blatant conflicts of interest, having Rita Braver and Linda Douglas cover the White House even though they both had financial relationships with the Clinton administration. Braver's husband, Robert Barnett, who was the Clintons' Whitewater lawyer when Braver was assigned to the White House beat in late 1992, reportedly recused himself from his role as first-family attorney. But in July 1993, Barnett was still up to his eyeballs in the Whitewater scandal, traveling to the White House after Vince Foster's death to collect papers investigators later said had been removed surreptitiously from Foster's office. Barnett continued working for the Clintons in another capacity, as book agent, successfully negotiating $20 million worth of book deals for Bill and Hillary beginning with Mrs. Clinton's 1998 screed, "Dear Socks, Dear Buddy" and continuing through Mr. Clinton's "My Life" last year. Unless Barnett kept his Clinton paychecks isolated from the household budget, Ms. Braver likely benefited from the White House jackpot more than Williams and Gallagher put together times 10!

If Ms. Braver ever mentioned her financial relationship to the White House during her news broadcasts, we missed it. Braver is far from the only high-profile media personality whose spouse was on the Clinton payroll.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper married longtime Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald in November 1997. Hillary Clinton even threw Grunwald a baby shower at the White House in July 1998. At the time Cooper was covering presidential politics for Newsweek.

CNN's Christiane Amanpour married Clinton State Department spokesman Jamie Rubin in August 1998. Though Rubin presumably shared his administration paycheck with his new bride, the financial link was never an issue for the Armstrong Williams posse.

Sometime the cash flowed in the opposite direction. As Byron York reported in 1998, CBS newswoman Linda Douglass [now with ABC] and her husband, an influential public interest lawyer named John Phillips, socialized often with Whitewater scandal figure Webster Hubbell and his wife, Suzy. Within weeks of Hubbell's 1994 resignation from the Justice Department, said York, "Phillips put together a deal by which a California non-profit group paid Hubbell $45,000 to write a series of articles on the idea of public service. "Later, Phillips and Douglass picked up much of the tab when they and the Hubbells flew to Greece for a ten-day vacation cruising the Aegean Sea. They stayed in touch after Hubbell pleaded guilty and even after Hubbell went to prison."

Given examples like these, it would seem that the media ethics police have a lot of catching up to do before continuing the hunt for journalists on the Bush administration payroll.


That's a cheap shot!!! You know that the LWDB's idea of wrongdoing is only attributable to the Republican side of the house!!!

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 03:00 PM
Haven't read any of these threads, but is this actually a surprise to anyone? I imagine this sort of thing happens all the time from both sides of the fence.

The problem isn't that it happens. The problem is that people are surprised that it happens. Wake up people.

I agree. And I don't think it would be a problem if the WH had not already been cited by the GAO for it's failure to disclose it's involvement in canned news segments produced and distributed to news outlets and run by them without any mention of their orientation.

Many people see this situation with the columnists to be an extension of the same type of propaganda production at the taxpayers expense.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/20/politics/20medicare.html?ex=1400385600&en=0d350efce643e111&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

White House's Medicare Videos Are Ruled Illegal
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: May 20, 2004


ASHINGTON, May 19 - The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Wednesday that the Bush administration had violated federal law by producing and disseminating television news segments that portray the new Medicare law as a boon to the elderly. The agency said the videos were a form of "covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials, broadcast by at least 40 television stations in 33 markets. The agency also expressed some concern about the content of the videos, but based its ruling on the lack of disclosure.

The consequences of the ruling were not immediately clear. The accounting office does not have law enforcement powers, but its decisions on federal spending are usually considered authoritative and are taken seriously by officials in the executive branch of the government.

The decision fuels a raging political debate over the new Medicare law. President Bush and many Republicans in Congress say the law will provide immense assistance to millions of elderly and disabled people. But Democrats say the law will do little for the elderly and is so seriously flawed that the government had to resort to an illegal public relations campaign to sell it to voters.

The General Accounting Office said that a specific part of the videos, a made-for-television "story package," violated the prohibition on using taxpayer money for propaganda.

People seeing the videos in a newscast would "believe that the information came from a nongovernment source or neutral party," it said.

William A. Pierce, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, who helped develop the videos, said: "We disagree. It's not covert. TV stations knew the videos came from us and could have identified the government as the source if they had wanted to."

The accounting office dismissed that argument. The intended audience, it said, was not news directors, but viewers, and "the video news releases did not alert viewers that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was the source."

Moreover, it said, "some news organizations indicated that they misread the label or they mistook the story package as an independent journalist news story."

Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting." A third video is narrated, in Spanish, by a man who identifies himself as "Alberto Garcia reporting." The scripts were prepared by the Bush administration at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a unit of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The accounting office said the videos were "not strictly factual news stories" and were flawed by "notable omissions and weaknesses" in their explanation of the Medicare law. But the main problem, it said, is that they were "misleading as to source."

The government, it said, served up a "purported news story" using "alleged reporters" to read scripts prepared by the government, but "nothing in the story packages permits the viewer to know that Karen Ryan and Alberto Garcia were paid with federal funds."

Federal law prohibits the use of federal money for "publicity or propaganda purposes" not authorized by Congress. The accounting office has found that federal agencies violated this restriction when they disseminated editorials and newspaper articles written by the government without identifying the source.

The accounting office said the administration's misuse of federal money "also constitutes a violation of the Antideficiency Act," which prohibits spending in excess of appropriations. Under the law, the secretary of health and human services, Tommy G. Thompson, must report the violation to Congress and the president, with "a statement of actions taken" to prevent a recurrence.

The Antideficiency Act, derived from a law passed in 1870, is one of the major statutes by which Congress exercises its constitutional control of the purse.

Medicare officials are unlikely to face any penalties. David M. Walker, the comptroller general of the United States, who is head of the General Accounting Office, said, "We do not have reason to believe that this violation was knowing and willful, and we are not in the enforcement business."

Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, said he was drafting legislation that would require the Bush campaign to reimburse the Medicare trust fund for the cost of the videos. The administration put the cost at $42,750, but refused to provide any documentation.

Senator John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, said it confirmed his view that the administration had improperly tapped the Medicare trust fund to pay for political advertisements.

Under the Medicare law, the government is encouraging the use of drug discount cards for the next 18 months. In 2006, Medicare will provide insurance coverage for certain outpatient drug costs.

The Bush administration hired Ketchum Inc. to disseminate information about the Medicare law, and Ketchum hired another company, Home Front Communications, to create the videos. The materials were distributed to television stations by satellite, mail and a syndicated news service, CNN Newsource, the ruling said.

BroWhippendiddle
01-30-2005, 03:05 PM
I agree. And I don't think it would be a problem if the WH had not already been cited by the GAO for it's failure to disclose it's involvement in canned news segments produced and distributed to news outlets and run by them without any mention of their orientation.

Many people see this situation with the columnists to be an extension of the same type of propaganda production at the taxpayers expense.


Why is it that you didn't give a crap about the propaganda when Clinton was in office? Why is it that you didn't give a crap about the White Water Scandal when Clinton was in the White House? Why is it that you had no problem with Clinton lying under oath during the impeachment? Why is it that you didn't give a crap about Clinton being impeached and left in office?

Oh, I forgot. He was a democrat which gave him the right to be wrong.

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 03:07 PM
Why is it that you didn't give a crap about the propaganda when Clinton was in office? Why is it that you didn't give a crap about the White Water Scandal when Clinton was in the White House? Why is it that you had no problem with Clinton lying under oath during the impeachment? Why is it that you didn't give a crap about Clinton being impeached and left in office?

Oh, I forgot. He was a democrat which gave him the right to be wrong.

Why do you forget that DUHbya came into office offering to bring integrity back to the WH and not to repeat the mistakes of Clinton???

Did he just mean the fat intern ones? :hmmm:

BroWhippendiddle
01-30-2005, 04:24 PM
Why do you forget that DUHbya came into office offering to bring integrity back to the WH and not to repeat the mistakes of Clinton???

Did he just mean the fat intern ones? :hmmm:

To date I don't know of the President of lying while under oath.

What you hate about the President does not qualify as a comparable integrity statement as you are not only biased against him but you are very biased.

I don't think you have the ability to compare the two presidents in an objective manner.

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:25 PM
To date I don't know of the President of lying while under oath.

What you hate about the President does not qualify as a comparable integrity statement as you are not only biased against him but you are very biased.

I don't think you have the ability to compare the two presidents in an objective manner.


Oh :doh!: , so anything short of lying under oath is fair game...got it.ROFL

BroWhippendiddle
01-30-2005, 04:29 PM
Oh :doh!: , so anything short of lying under oath is fair game...got it.ROFL


So you are saying that lying under oath is acceptable?

I haven't mentioned anything about your oval office experiences. That part of Clintons problems are between him and Billary. The fact that he was impeached should be clear enough for you. And, for the record, he was found guilty but not removed from office.

When President Bush is brought up on charges we can revisit your hatred.

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 04:39 PM
So you are saying that lying under oath is acceptable?

I haven't mentioned anything about your oval office experiences. That part of Clintons problems are between him and Billary. The fact that he was impeached should be clear enough for you. And, for the record, he was found guilty but not removed from office.

When President Bush is brought up on charges we can revisit your hatred.

Nope, I thought Clinton was a fool then and do now. It's not acceptable...

but no one died because of his deception.

CHIEF4EVER
01-30-2005, 04:42 PM
Nope, I thought Clinton was a fool then and do now. It's not acceptable...

but no one died because of his deception.

No but an awful lot of people died because of his IMCOMPETENCE in Somalia. His deception simply made a mockery of his office and costed the US a lot of credibility.

stevieray
01-30-2005, 04:43 PM
but no one died because of his deception.

No, people died because of his inability to act

BroWhippendiddle
01-30-2005, 04:46 PM
Nope, I thought Clinton was a fool then and do now. It's not acceptable...

but no one died because of his deception.

You might be correct about his lies. You are incorrect in thinking that Clinton had nothing to do with those that died on 9/11. It was Clinton's inaction that gave an open invitation to OBL to attack in the manner he did. At least four times during his administration the U.S. was attacked and he didn't do anything other than to fire a missile up a camel's butt!!

President Bush is taking the heat for what Clinton caused.

memyselfI
01-30-2005, 05:13 PM
You might be correct about his lies. You are incorrect in thinking that Clinton had nothing to do with those that died on 9/11. It was Clinton's inaction that gave an open invitation to OBL to attack in the manner he did. At least four times during his administration the U.S. was attacked and he didn't do anything other than to fire a missile up a camel's butt!!

President Bush is taking the heat for what Clinton caused.

Even DUHbya's perceived successes are Clinton's fault. ROFL :clap: :thumb:

CHIEF4EVER
01-30-2005, 05:18 PM
Even DUHbya's perceived successes are Clinton's fault. ROFL :clap: :thumb:

So you are maintaining that Clintadultereron didn't drop the ball after US interests were repeatedly attacked?

Braincase
01-30-2005, 05:44 PM
Profiteering from ideological journalism is nothing new and it happens regularly, although typically the check comes after the process rather than before.

I wonder who pays for Michael Moore's phaque-mentories?

BroWhippendiddle
01-30-2005, 06:10 PM
Even DUHbya's perceived successes are Clinton's fault. ROFL :clap: :thumb:

Name the successes that Clinton gave to Bush!!!

Cutting Social Security? Yep, that happened during Clintons admin.

SBK
01-30-2005, 10:19 PM
No, people died because of his inability to act

Might as well stop posting on here now, it's all downhill from this one! REP.

SBK
01-30-2005, 10:21 PM
Who was it that promised the dems 15 points in last falls election?

This thread cracks me up cause the media is so far in the tank for the left wingers, that these 3 folks taking any heat (for something they did that was wrong) is completely laughable.

Loki
01-31-2005, 09:55 AM
Nope, I thought Clinton was a fool then and do now. It's not acceptable...

but no one died because of his deception.

you gotta be SH!TTING me!!!
:cuss:

did you forget about the USS Cole?
our bombed embassies? his botched
"peace initiatives" in bosnia and somalia?
the WTC, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc???!!!

(i'm wasting my time again aren't i?)
:shake: :shake: :shake: :shake: :shake: