PDA

View Full Version : Justice Dept. Issues Memo Countering GAO Decree on Propaganda?


NewChief
03-16-2005, 07:00 AM
Haven't found a good primary source yet, but evidently the Justice Dept. issued a memo saying that the GAO ruling about govt. propaganda needing to identify itself as being produced by the government isn't valid.

Any thoughts? (and a primary source would be nice as well).

the Talking Can
03-16-2005, 07:02 AM
Bush's justice department says that paying for fake news is perfectly fine....I'm shocked...

memyselfI
03-16-2005, 07:18 AM
Would you exect any less from this Commander in Cheat? :hmmm:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35010-2005Mar14.html?nav=rss_politics/administration


Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos
GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A21

The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.

That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda.


OMB's Joshua B. Bolten: Justice, not GAO, interprets law. (Larry Downing--Reuters)

But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in memos last week that the administration disagrees with the GAO's ruling. And, in any case, they wrote, the department's Office of Legal Counsel, not the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, provides binding legal interpretations for federal agencies to follow.

The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,' " Bradbury wrote. "Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency."

The existence of the memos was reported Sunday by the New York Times.

Supporters say prepackaged news stories are a common public relations tool with roots in previous administrations, that their exterior packaging typically identifies the government as the source, and that it is up to news organizations, not the government, to reveal to viewers where the material they broadcast came from.

Critics have derided such video news releases as taxpayer-financed attempts by the administration to promote its policies in the guise of independent news reports.

Within the last year, the GAO has rapped the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy for distributing such stories about the Medicare drug benefit and the administration's anti-drug campaign, respectively.

In an interview yesterday, Walker said the administration's approach is both contrary to appropriations law and unethical.

"This is more than a legal issue. It's also an ethical issue and involves important good government principles, namely the need for openness in connection with government activities and expenditures," Walker said. "We should not just be seeking to do what's arguably legal. We should be doing what's right."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday that federal agencies have used video news releases for years. "As long as they are providing factual information, it's okay," he said.

Walker said that even by that standard, some prepackaged news stories are out of bounds.

"Congress has got to settle it -- either Congress or the courts," Walker said. "Congress may need to provide additional guidance with regard to their intent in this overall area."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said through a spokesman yesterday that he will try to attach language to an appropriations bill to clarify that taxpayer money cannot be spent on such productions. He and fellow Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) wrote to President Bush yesterday asking him to pull back the new memos from Justice and the OMB.

They noted that following revelations this year that the Education Department had paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind law, Bush had directed agencies to abandon such clandestine public relations practices.

"Whether in the form of a payment to an actual journalist, or through the creation of a fake one, it is wrong to deceive the public with the creation of phony news stories," the lawmakers wrote.

Radar Chief
03-16-2005, 07:45 AM
Any of you guys ever go snipe hunting?
You should try it some time, come on over and I’ll take ya. ;)

homey
03-16-2005, 09:26 AM
It's amazing really. This all happens right in front of us and 51% of this nation just doesn't get it. In fact, they defend it. What has happened?

KCTitus
03-16-2005, 09:31 AM
Forgive me for not 'getting it', but what propoganda are we talking about here...the Armstrong Williams thing? If so, does anyone find it the least bit suprising a conservative talk show host would support a govt program proposed by the Bush admin?

NewChief
03-16-2005, 09:39 AM
Forgive me for not 'getting it', but what propoganda are we talking about here...the Armstrong Williams thing? If so, does anyone find it the least bit suprising a conservative talk show host would support a govt program proposed by the Bush admin?

You've brought up the reason that I wanted a primary source. Here's my understanding, though:

The GAO ruling held that if the government is funding the newscast, commercial, or story then it should be clearly stated that the gov't is the source. The Justice Dept. memo says to disregard this ruling.

All of this being said, I posted in hopes of getting a link that had the full text of the JD memo as well as a link for the full text of the GAO ruling.

beavis
03-16-2005, 09:51 AM
Cool, another lib circle jerk thread.

NewChief
03-16-2005, 10:01 AM
Cool, another lib circle jerk thread.

What can we say? The cons make them soppy biscuits look so good, we decided we'd like a few of our own.

HC_Chief
03-16-2005, 10:03 AM
Is this the new "damning item" that the left is clinging to?

Heh, you guys keep flinging poo out there like so many monkeys, hoping something will stick. It's very entertaining. :D

KCTitus
03-16-2005, 10:24 AM
You've brought up the reason that I wanted a primary source. Here's my understanding, though:

The GAO ruling held that if the government is funding the newscast, commercial, or story then it should be clearly stated that the gov't is the source. The Justice Dept. memo says to disregard this ruling.

All of this being said, I posted in hopes of getting a link that had the full text of the JD memo as well as a link for the full text of the GAO ruling.

Ive heard nothing about it, but GAO's ruling make sense...the two items that I can recall were Armstong Williams and some blogger, both were conservative supporting the admin plan for some new program.

It would be interesting to read why Justice doesnt think that the GAO's ruling makes sense...

penchief
03-16-2005, 10:25 AM
Is this the new "damning item" that the left is clinging to?

Heh, you guys keep flinging poo out there like so many monkeys, hoping something will stick. It's very entertaining. :D


Those of you who make light of this don't get it and are really missing the point, IMO. Since when does the leadership of the most open government in history resort to fascist propaganda tactics. Yes, I said it. FASCIST TACTICS.

Paying to have fake newscast look real and not identify the fact that they are fake reeks of the same tactics employed by the worst totalitarian and fascist regimes in his history.

The fact that this country would even get a whiff of that sort of crap is not only a disgrace but a real threat to both open government and freedom of the press.

The fact that there are even people on this board or in this country that would defend such tactics is a scary, scary thought.

KCTitus
03-16-2005, 10:26 AM
Those of you who make light of this don't get it and are really missing the point, IMO. Since when does the leadership of the most open government in history resort to fascist propaganda tactics. Yes, I said it. FASCIST TACTICS.

Paying to have fake newscast look real and not identify the fact that they are fake reeks of the same tactics employed by the worst totalitarian and fascist regimes in his history.

The fact that this country would even get a whiff of that sort of crap is not only a disgrace but a real threat to both open government and freedom of the press.

The fact that there are even people on this board or in this country that would defend such tactics is a scary, scary thought.

I'd get out while you still can...I can hear the black helicopters coming!

NewChief
03-16-2005, 10:27 AM
Ive heard nothing about it, but GAO's ruling make sense...the two items that I can recall were Armstong Williams and some blogger, both were conservative supporting the admin plan for some new program.

It would be interesting to read why Justice doesnt think that the GAO's ruling makes sense...

Right. Currently all I've seen are second hand opinionated takes on it, which doesn't really give me a very good idea of the overall picture. Oh well, I'm sure the other side's view will come out eventually and we'll get to see the entire spectrum of opinion.

penchief
03-16-2005, 10:32 AM
I'd get out while you still can...I can hear the black helicopters coming!

My understanding is that this is not about the Armstrong Williams case. This is about the administration's use of actors to participate in fake newscasts and then distributing those newscasts to legitimate news outlets.

That is no laughing matter. That is a threat and I can't believe there are people who would defend that practice and still call themselves true Americans.

KCTitus
03-16-2005, 10:34 AM
Right. Currently all I've seen are second hand opinionated takes on it, which doesn't really give me a very good idea of the overall picture. Oh well, I'm sure the other side's view will come out eventually and we'll get to see the entire spectrum of opinion.

I googled and found a story on the WashPost...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35010-2005Mar14.html

Here's the most relevant piece:

But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in memos last week that the administration disagrees with the GAO's ruling. And, in any case, they wrote, the department's Office of Legal Counsel, not the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, provides binding legal interpretations for federal agencies to follow.

The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,' " Bradbury wrote. "Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency."

KCTitus
03-16-2005, 10:38 AM
My understanding is that this is not about the Armstrong Williams case. This is about the administration's use of actors to participate in fake newscasts and then distributing those newscasts to legitimate news outlets.

That is no laughing matter. That is a threat and I can't believe there are people who would defend that practice and still call themselves true Americans.

While the issue may merit discussion, your overreaction is totally a laughing matter. Over the top reactionary nonsense is absurd.

I do understand how you feel, however, as years ago I used to be forced to view ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN create their own 'fake' newscasts which was nothing more than liberal propoganda posing as news.

Oddly, the Union survived...

Pitt Gorilla
03-16-2005, 10:41 AM
Cool, another lib circle jerk thread.Actually, it doesn't read that way to me. MAYBE, you should read the author's posts and re-evaluate.

penchief
03-16-2005, 10:43 AM
While the issue may merit discussion, your overreaction is totally a laughing matter. Over the top reactionary nonsense is absurd.

I do understand how you feel, however, as years ago I used to be forced to view ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN create their own 'fake' newscasts which was nothing more than liberal propoganda posing as news.

Oddly, the Union survived...

IMO, it is not an overreaction when put in perspective. It fits neatly into a pattern of deceit practiced by this administration for the purpsoe of usurping power and imposing an agenda. It is unAmerican. Period.

I'm waiting for this administration to push the envelope far enough for the true believers to become outraged. It hasn't happened yet.

What will it take?

NewChief
03-16-2005, 10:46 AM
I googled and found a story on the WashPost...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35010-2005Mar14.html

Here's the most relevant piece:

Aha, I see. The part abou the GAO not being the makers of law makes sense. I'm not sure I agree with the other part of their argument, but I'd have to see a more thorough (and less confusingly legalese) explanation.

KCTitus
03-16-2005, 10:48 AM
IMO, it is not an overreaction when put in perspective. It fits neatly into a pattern of deceit practiced by this administration for the purpsoe of usurping power and imposing an agenda. It is unAmerican. Period.

I'm waiting for this administration to push the envelope far enough for the true believers to become outraged. It hasn't happened yet.

What will it take?

That's a terribly warped perspective that casually runs and compares everything this admin does to the nazi regimes. As long as that keeps happeing, be preprared to continue to be the butt of jokes.


What will it take...that's easy. Develop electable ideas. Spouting 40 year old failed ideas over and over while chanting "The Sky is Falling" or crying "Wolf!" is not resounding with the 'true believers'.

Either that or start finding and exposing all the gas chambers...

Brock
03-16-2005, 10:49 AM
My understanding is that this is not about the Armstrong Williams case. This is about the administration's use of actors to participate in fake newscasts and then distributing those newscasts to legitimate news outlets.


Yeah, legit news outlets, like CBS News. ROFL

KCTitus
03-16-2005, 10:49 AM
Aha, I see. The part abou the GAO not being the makers of law makes sense. I'm not sure I agree with the other part of their argument, but I'd have to see a more thorough (and less confusingly legalese) explanation.

Whether or not it hinges on 'advocacy', I could really care less...I still think that it should be noted as a govt dept production. That's reasonable, IMO.

NewChief
03-16-2005, 10:54 AM
What can we say? The cons make them soppy biscuits look so good, we decided we'd like a few of our own.

Sorry to quote myself, but I needed to add the appropriate smiley:

:drool:

Or is that :bukaka:

Pitt Gorilla
03-16-2005, 01:37 PM
Whether or not it hinges on 'advocacy', I could really care less...I still think that it should be noted as a govt dept production. That's reasonable, IMO.That would make sense. I wonder what the problem is?

KCWolfman
03-16-2005, 02:27 PM
Every piece I have seen has been designated as produced by the government.

More importantly, if it is not designated, is that the fault of the government. Seems to me to be the fault of the agency showing the video or giving the excerpt.

This is just another attempt by whiny assed liberals to detract from the data being issued by the government. The same crybabies weren't making a sound for several years while Clinton initiated the program and fed it to support his position. Nor did Republicans throw temper tantrums about him doing so.

Evidently, the liberals think people are too stupid to figure it out on their own.

KCWolfman
03-16-2005, 02:28 PM
IMO, it is not an overreaction when put in perspective. It fits neatly into a pattern of deceit practiced by this administration for the purpsoe of usurping power and imposing an agenda. It is unAmerican. Period.

I'm waiting for this administration to push the envelope far enough for the true believers to become outraged. It hasn't happened yet.

What will it take?
This administration didn't start the news propaganda of its office, the previous admin did. Obviously, your outrage was time released.

penchief
03-16-2005, 02:56 PM
Yeah, legit news outlets, like CBS News. ROFL

Brock, even I think you are capable of distinguishing between what you believe to be bias and the government staging fake newscasts.

Brock
03-16-2005, 02:58 PM
Brock, even I think you are capable of distinguishing between what you believe to be bias and the government staging fake newscasts.

Bias? How about LIES? You know, what you're always accusing Bush of doing?

penchief
03-16-2005, 03:01 PM
This administration didn't start the news propaganda of its office, the previous admin did. Obviously, your outrage was time released.

Give me an example of a fake newscast coming out of the previous administration. As we know, this administration has already been caught with it's hand in the cookie jar.

KCWolfman
03-16-2005, 04:48 PM
Give me an example of a fake newscast coming out of the previous administration. As we know, this administration has already been caught with it's hand in the cookie jar.
Again, who broadcast this "newscast"?

And again, who made it legal to broadcast such news?

NewChief
03-17-2005, 10:19 AM
Bush weighed in on this issue in a recent press conference. I lifted this from salon.com (you've been warned). I took out most of the editorializing and tried to include only the direct quotes of the exchange between W. and the reporter:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
Here's Bush's response about the ethical questions the GAO raised in its ruling about video news releases:

Bush: "There is a Justice Department opinion that says these -- these pieces are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy. And I expect our agencies to adhere to that ruling, to that Justice Department opinion. This has been a longstanding practice of the federal government to use these types of videos. The Agricultural Department, as I understand it, has been using these videos for a long period of time. The Defense Department, other departments have been doing so. It's important that they be based on the guidelines set out by the Justice Department."

....

At the press conference, Bush continued, "Now, I also -- I think it would be helpful if local stations then disclosed to their viewers that that's -- that this was based upon a factual report, and they chose to use it. But evidently, in some cases, that's not the case."

Reporter: "The administration could guarantee that's happening by including that language in the pre-packaged report…. some way to make sure it couldn't air without the disclosure that you believe is so vital."

Bush: "You know, Ken, there's a procedure that we're going to follow, and the local stations ought to -- if there's a deep concern about that, ought to tell their viewers what they're watching."

KCWolfman
03-17-2005, 02:50 PM
Bush weighed in on this issue in a recent press conference. I lifted this from salon.com (you've been warned). I took out most of the editorializing and tried to include only the direct quotes of the exchange between W. and the reporter:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html
Here's Bush's response about the ethical questions the GAO raised in its ruling about video news releases:

Bush: "There is a Justice Department opinion that says these -- these pieces are within the law, so long as they're based upon facts, not advocacy. And I expect our agencies to adhere to that ruling, to that Justice Department opinion. This has been a longstanding practice of the federal government to use these types of videos. The Agricultural Department, as I understand it, has been using these videos for a long period of time. The Defense Department, other departments have been doing so. It's important that they be based on the guidelines set out by the Justice Department."

....

At the press conference, Bush continued, "Now, I also -- I think it would be helpful if local stations then disclosed to their viewers that that's -- that this was based upon a factual report, and they chose to use it. But evidently, in some cases, that's not the case."

Reporter: "The administration could guarantee that's happening by including that language in the pre-packaged report…. some way to make sure it couldn't air without the disclosure that you believe is so vital."

Bush: "You know, Ken, there's a procedure that we're going to follow, and the local stations ought to -- if there's a deep concern about that, ought to tell their viewers what they're watching."
And again, who is picking up these broadcasts without labeling them as government created? And why is it the supposed fault of the government for lazy practices by the networks?

penchief
03-19-2005, 05:23 AM
And again, who is picking up these broadcasts without labeling them as government created? And why is it the supposed fault of the government for lazy practices by the networks?

The GAO warned the White House that these tactics were against the law. You probably already know more about it than I do but I believe that the firm the administration paid was Ketchum? One of the fake newscasts was in support of the Administration's Medicare drug benefit. In that faux newscast, a fake reporter named Karen Ryan was reporting from Washington D.C. in which she claimed that all people covered by Medicare would benefit from lower drug costs.

As far as who aired them? Sinclair ran them on their local newscasts accross the country. That doesn't surprise you, does it?

Here's an funny tidbit that was on Yahoo this morning. Of course, Trudeau is a libbie but more importantly, we all know that none of this really ever happened. BushCo would never resort to a propaganda campaign.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20050318/en_bpiep/garrytrudeaubushapparentlythinkspropagandasok

penchief
03-19-2005, 06:19 AM
Bias? How about LIES? You know, what you're always accusing Bush of doing?

Again, propaganda by Dan Rather and Government Sponsored Propaganda are two different things. The act of Government Sponsored Propaganda is exactly what fascist and totalitarian regimes resort to; not free, open, and democratic societies like America is supposed to be.

I would like to see just one conservative draw a line in the sand on this issue. If this had been a democratic administration that line would have been drawn on the beachhead, IMO.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 07:35 AM
The GAO warned the White House that these tactics were against the law. You probably already know more about it than I do but I believe that the firm the administration paid was Ketchum? One of the fake newscasts was in support of the Administration's Medicare drug benefit. In that faux newscast, a fake reporter named Karen Ryan was reporting from Washington D.C. in which she claimed that all people covered by Medicare would benefit from lower drug costs.

As far as who aired them? Sinclair ran them on their local newscasts accross the country. That doesn't surprise you, does it?

Here's an funny tidbit that was on Yahoo this morning. Of course, Trudeau is a libbie but more importantly, we all know that none of this really ever happened. BushCo would never resort to a propaganda campaign.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ep/20050318/en_bpiep/garrytrudeaubushapparentlythinkspropagandasok

So Sinclair is responsible for airing broadcasts without assigning authorship? And the government is responsible for Sinclair's actions?

penchief
03-19-2005, 08:38 AM
So Sinclair is responsible for airing broadcasts without assigning authorship? And the government is responsible for Sinclair's actions?

Of course, neither one has any responsibility. That is the legacy of this administration. No responsibility and no accountability.

The fact that neither will be held responsible or accountable does not mean that the practice of manufacturing and airing false newscasts in order to persuade the populace is okay, does it?

And if it isn't okay, just who is responsible? The liberals? Why, of course.

Brock
03-19-2005, 08:45 AM
Again, propaganda by Dan Rather and Government Sponsored Propaganda are two different things. The act of Government Sponsored Propaganda is exactly what fascist and totalitarian regimes resort to; not free, open, and democratic societies like America is supposed to be.

And I suppose that you will still deny that any liberal bias exists even when the evidence lands right on top of your pointy little head. Typical hypocrisy from penchief.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 09:13 AM
Of course, neither one has any responsibility. That is the legacy of this administration. No responsibility and no accountability.

The fact that neither will be held responsible or accountable does not mean that the practice of manufacturing and airing false newscasts in order to persuade the populace is okay, does it?

And if it isn't okay, just who is responsible? The liberals? Why, of course.
Once more, without the usual "evil republican" diatribe you spew out - who is responsible, the government or Sinclair? If the answer is Sinclair, why are you bitchin' about the government?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 09:14 AM
And I suppose that you will still deny that any liberal bias exists even when the evidence lands right on top of your pointy little head. Typical hypocrisy from penchief.
He has already equivocated that the bias distributed by the left is "different".

Sad excuse, but true.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 11:20 AM
It's amazing really. This all happens right in front of us and 51% of this nation just doesn't get it. In fact, they defend it. What has happened?
8 years of watching Democrats excuse Clinton for breaking every one of their pet rules (and even some laws) might have something to do with the Republicans sticking by their guy despite it all.

Just a thought.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 11:27 AM
Again, propaganda by Dan Rather and Government Sponsored Propaganda are two different things. The act of Government Sponsored Propaganda is exactly what fascist and totalitarian regimes resort to; not free, open, and democratic societies like America is supposed to be.

I would like to see just one conservative draw a line in the sand on this issue. If this had been a democratic administration that line would have been drawn on the beachhead, IMO.
Bulls**t. Totalitarian regimes run their own news agency SUPRESSING ALL OTHERS. Until Bush shuts down cBS and the rest of the MSM you've got nothing to bitch abut.

penchief
03-19-2005, 04:44 PM
So conservatives support government sponsored propaganda?

Where do conservatives draw the line?

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 04:54 PM
So conservatives support government sponsored propaganda?

Where do conservatives draw the line?
And liberals support deceit and lies through demagoguery and foolish extrapolations.

Gee, this is easy when you do as penchief has done and thrown all pertinent information out the window.

penchief
03-19-2005, 05:01 PM
8 years of watching Democrats excuse Clinton for breaking every one of their pet rules (and even some laws) might have something to do with the Republicans sticking by their guy despite it all.

Just a thought.

I don't think I've ever defended any illegality by the Prez. Anyway, what does that have to do with the virtues of government sponsored propaganda.

So you are defending the practice of faking a newscast in order to promote a policy? That's all I'm asking.

penchief
03-19-2005, 05:03 PM
And liberals support deceit and lies through demagoguery and foolish extrapolations.

Gee, this is easy when you do as penchief has done and thrown all pertinent information out the window.

And what does that have to do with Government Sponsored Propaganda spewing forth from the White House?

Deception and demagoguery are political staples on both sides of the aisle. I happen to believe that propaganda crosses the line when the office of the president uses taxpayer money to fake newscasts in order to deceive the populace.

Do you agree or not? That's all I'm asking.

KCWolfman
03-19-2005, 05:28 PM
And what does that have to do with Government Sponsored Propaganda spewing forth from the White House?

Deception and demagoguery are political staples on both sides of the aisle. I happen to believe that propaganda crosses the line when the office of the president uses taxpayer money to fake newscasts in order to deceive the populace.

Do you agree or not? That's all I'm asking.
Why not? The previous administration started the department - it didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now. As long as groups showing the information are honest about its sources, I see no problem with it.

If the groups aren't honest, then that is the fault of the news agency, not the government. For you to state they are playing it as a "newscast" just spotlights your horrid bias. The White House doesn't own a television station. They aren't pumping out anything. In fact, do you have a link showing these unlabeled displays being released to the general public?

Funny how this wasn't an issue with the Clinton Whitehouse although they legalized and manufactured the first "propaganda" department.

Simplex3
03-19-2005, 05:32 PM
And what does that have to do with Government Sponsored Propaganda spewing forth from the White House?

Deception and demagoguery are political staples on both sides of the aisle. I happen to believe that propaganda crosses the line when the office of the president uses taxpayer money to fake newscasts in order to deceive the populace.

Do you agree or not? That's all I'm asking.

No, I don't think the President is out of line with this. Every time Ted "Killer" Kennedy gets up on CSPAN to spew some BS about the minimum wage, education funding, blah, blah, blah, he's spending taxpayer dollars.

Every time some idiot congressman stands in the halls or some anti-room dribbling verbal sewage he's spendng taxpayer's money. The only difference is the MSM will carry the broadcast expenses for the dems.

penchief
03-20-2005, 05:39 AM
No, I don't think the President is out of line with this. Every time Ted "Killer" Kennedy gets up on CSPAN to spew some BS about the minimum wage, education funding, blah, blah, blah, he's spending taxpayer dollars.

Every time some idiot congressman stands in the halls or some anti-room dribbling verbal sewage he's spendng taxpayer's money. The only difference is the MSM will carry the broadcast expenses for the dems.

And when the president speaks the whole world is listening. He spews forth demagoguery and deception every time he opens his mouth, too. So why does he need to resort to fascist government tactics? The campaign is over. He's supposed to be working on the country's business now. Unfortunately, the public has come to accept dishonesty in presidential campaigns. But I don't think we expect our government to operate in dishonest and deceitful ways. Especially when it comes to deceiving the public about issues that are relevent to the conduct of our nation's business.

That, IMO, is the difference. You can talk about liberal media bias (clearly a myth) all you want. You can talk about Dan Rather all you want. The irony of the whole Rathergate incident is the fact that our president still has not accounted for his whereabouts during that year or so. Sure, the CBS documents were not authentic but that doesn't mean that the liar isn't Bush. Do I think it matters where Bush was? No. I think any logical person probably already knows that he wasn't there. But just like Clinton, it's about his ability to come clean. He is no better than Clinton on that issue. Yet he is not held accountable. So while I have a problem with CBS's methods, it hasn't been proven who's really lying about the president's whereabouts when he should have been serving his country.

Yet there is a difference in an independent news agency behaving in a perceived partisan manner and the government using tax payer funds to create deception in order to promote policies that should succeed or fail on their own merit. And there is a difference in using the public forum, as both sides of any argument do, in order to state opinions, deceive, or influence (rightly or wrongly) and using tax payer money to influence the public through measures that are contrary to the American ideals of open, honest government which undermine the fundamental trust that has been forged between the American public and the type democracy that we profess to be so proud of.

In my opinion.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 08:23 AM
And when the president speaks the whole world is listening. He spews forth demagoguery and deception every time he opens his mouth, too. So why does he need to resort to fascist government tactics?
Once again, putting out your opinion to news media isn't being fascist. You aren't being fascist until you close down dissenting opinion. Everyone else in the MSM is free to and does take him to task over everything he says and some things he doesn't.
The campaign is over. He's supposed to be working on the country's business now.
If he's going to get his policies pushed through Congress he must get the people to support those ideas with enough force that Congressmen (who are lazy and stagnant by nature) fear losing their jobs opposing them.
Unfortunately, the public has come to accept dishonesty in presidential campaigns. But I don't think we expect our government to operate in dishonest and deceitful ways. Especially when it comes to deceiving the public about issues that are relevent to the conduct of our nation's business.
I expect my govt. to lie to me about everything. I think every free person should. It's the only way to remain free. The minute you start thinking some elected stranger is looking out for you is the minute they're f**king you from behind.

That, IMO, is the difference. You can talk about liberal media bias (clearly a myth) all you want. You can talk about Dan Rather all you want. The irony of the whole Rathergate incident is the fact that our president still has not accounted for his whereabouts during that year or so. Sure, the CBS documents were not authentic but that doesn't mean that the liar isn't Bush. Do I think it matters where Bush was? No. I think any logical person probably already knows that he wasn't there. But just like Clinton, it's about his ability to come clean. He is no better than Clinton on that issue. Yet he is not held accountable. So while I have a problem with CBS's methods, it hasn't been proven who's really lying about the president's whereabouts when he should have been serving his country.
ROFL This only proves my point that the majority of politicians are trying to anal-rape you. People who deserve the kind of power that the Imperial Federal Govt. has granted itself over the last century rarely seek out that power. Usually it's elitist scumbags trying to gain influence to better their own situation. The only way to change the quality of people in govt is to reduce the power they can wield once they get in office. I'm all for it.
Yet there is a difference in an independent news agency behaving in a perceived partisan manner and the government using tax payer funds to create deception in order to promote policies that should succeed or fail on their own merit. And there is a difference in using the public forum, as both sides of any argument do, in order to state opinions, deceive, or influence (rightly or wrongly) and using tax payer money to influence the public through measures that are contrary to the American ideals of open, honest government which undermine the fundamental trust that has been forged between the American public and the type democracy that we profess to be so proud of.

In my opinion.
"PERCEIVED PARTISAN MANNER"?!?!?! Rather had a sKerry/Edwards bumper sticker on his forehead! He actually said on more than one occassion that he preferred Kerry! Then he gets nailed running a proven fake story! There's nothing "perceived" about it.

How are those policies supposed to succeed on their own merit if noone gets out any of the positive information? No offense, but conservatives and libertarians can't get a positive spin on their message from 95% of the MSM. If you were promoting a new animal shelter the headline would be "Does Bush eat kittens?"

As for the "taxpayer funded" bit, I can think of tons of crap spending that I'm a lot more upset about than this.

Like it or not (and I don't), the media is not what it used to be. It's now a bunch of shills for some party, some cause, or money. It's our duty as free men and women to fact check with both side of the aisle, then find about three other sources, and decide for ourselves where the answer lies. Most often it's nowhere near either party's definition.

penchief
03-20-2005, 10:28 AM
Once again, putting out your opinion to news media isn't being fascist. You aren't being fascist until you close down dissenting opinion. Everyone else in the MSM is free to and does take him to task over everything he says and some things he doesn't.

If he's going to get his policies pushed through Congress he must get the people to support those ideas with enough force that Congressmen (who are lazy and stagnant by nature) fear losing their jobs opposing them.

I expect my govt. to lie to me about everything. I think every free person should. It's the only way to remain free. The minute you start thinking some elected stranger is looking out for you is the minute they're f**king you from behind.

ROFL This only proves my point that the majority of politicians are trying to anal-rape you. People who deserve the kind of power that the Imperial Federal Govt. has granted itself over the last century rarely seek out that power. Usually it's elitist scumbags trying to gain influence to better their own situation. The only way to change the quality of people in govt is to reduce the power they can wield once they get in office. I'm all for it.

"PERCEIVED PARTISAN MANNER"?!?!?! Rather had a sKerry/Edwards bumper sticker on his forehead! He actually said on more than one occassion that he preferred Kerry! Then he gets nailed running a proven fake story! There's nothing "perceived" about it.

How are those policies supposed to succeed on their own merit if noone gets out any of the positive information? No offense, but conservatives and libertarians can't get a positive spin on their message from 95% of the MSM. If you were promoting a new animal shelter the headline would be "Does Bush eat kittens?"

As for the "taxpayer funded" bit, I can think of tons of crap spending that I'm a lot more upset about than this.

Like it or not (and I don't), the media is not what it used to be. It's now a bunch of shills for some party, some cause, or money. It's our duty as free men and women to fact check with both side of the aisle, then find about three other sources, and decide for ourselves where the answer lies. Most often it's nowhere near either party's definition.

The point is that they all have equal access to the public forum. They can all play the same game. They all express their opinions, promote their deceits, and play their games in the same congressional halls and the same newscasts. Attempting to pass off propaganda as news is taking it to another level. Using taxpayer money to deceive the public in this way is unacceptable in a democracy such as ours when it comes from the highest levels of our government.

As far as bias goes, I didn't hear any conservatives whining when CBS eagerly played the Clinton "scandals" to the hilt so they could have their hand in the "big story." If the "liberal media" had been so liberal, Clinton would have gotten the same free ride that they have afforded Bush pertaining to his so-called service, his drug use, or the financial scandals surrounding himself and his family.

By the way, fake newscasts intended to seem real is not putting out your opinion. It is fascist-like propaganda tactics.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 10:37 AM
As far as bias goes, I didn't hear any conservatives whining when CBS eagerly played the Clinton "scandals" to the hilt so they could have their hand in the "big story." If the "liberal media" had been so liberal, Clinton would have gotten the same free ride that they have afforded Bush pertaining to his so-called service, his drug use, or the financial scandals surrounding himself and his family.

By the way, fake newscasts intended to seem real is not putting out your opinion. It is fascist-like propaganda tactics.
1. Just because you continually use the word fascist doesn't mean I'm ever going to except your loose definition of Bush as one. I'm not one of these idiots that hears something three times and then believes it's fact.

2. I don't seem to remember 60 minutes running prime time specials on the KGB funded trip to Moscow that Clinton took while he was in Europe dodging the draft. And that one can be proved with real REAL documents instead of real FAKE documents.

3. Most of the Clinton-Lewinsky coverage I saw was about those evil bastard Republicans not leaving this poor, poor President alone to live his private life. Hardly a scathing report against Clinton.

4. They don't have equal access. Kerry got more air time and FAR friendlier questions. Nobody in the MSM grilled Kerry over why his honorable discharge wan't dated until during the Carter administration. Nobody in the MSM grilled him over his own waffles on his book. Nobody in the MSM grilled him over his statementst that he owned illegal firearms. With Bush it was a non-stop parade of TANG this TANG that. Unless someone in Iraq died and they could badger him with that.

penchief
03-20-2005, 10:50 AM
1. Just because you continually use the word fascist doesn't mean I'm ever going to except your loose definition of Bush as one. I'm not one of these idiots that hears something three times and then believes it's fact.

2. I don't seem to remember 60 minutes running prime time specials on the KGB funded trip to Moscow that Clinton took while he was in Europe dodging the draft. And that one can be proved with real REAL documents instead of real FAKE documents.

3. Most of the Clinton-Lewinsky coverage I saw was about those evil bastard Republicans not leaving this poor, poor President alone to live his private life. Hardly a scathing report against Clinton.

4. They don't have equal access. Kerry got more air time and FAR friendlier questions. Nobody in the MSM grilled Kerry over why his honorable discharge wan't dated until during the Carter administration. Nobody in the MSM grilled him over his own waffles on his book. Nobody in the MSM grilled him over his statementst that he owned illegal firearms. With Bush it was a non-stop parade of TANG this TANG that. Unless someone in Iraq died and they could badger him with that.

Never outright called Bush a fascist. My gripe is that his administration has little regard for honesty when it comes to pressing their agenda. We simply disagree on this issue. Fake newscasts intended to fool the public by running on local newscast around the country are beyond the bounds of honest and open government. Running ads espousing a point of view are perfectly within bounds. Passing opinions off as news is not.

As far as balance in reporting goes, very much of what Clinton was mercilessly skewered for has never gone beyond day one with most of the media when it pertains to Bush.

Simplex3
03-20-2005, 10:56 AM
My gripe is that his administration has little regard for honesty when it comes to pressing their agenda. We simply disagree on this issue.
On politicians being deceitful liars we don't disagree. :thumb:

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 06:22 AM
And when the president speaks the whole world is listening. He spews forth demagoguery and deception every time he opens his mouth, too. So why does he need to resort to fascist government tactics? The campaign is over. He's supposed to be working on the country's business now. Unfortunately, the public has come to accept dishonesty in presidential campaigns. But I don't think we expect our government to operate in dishonest and deceitful ways. Especially when it comes to deceiving the public about issues that are relevent to the conduct of our nation's business.

That, IMO, is the difference. You can talk about liberal media bias (clearly a myth) all you want. You can talk about Dan Rather all you want. The irony of the whole Rathergate incident is the fact that our president still has not accounted for his whereabouts during that year or so. Sure, the CBS documents were not authentic but that doesn't mean that the liar isn't Bush. Do I think it matters where Bush was? No. I think any logical person probably already knows that he wasn't there. But just like Clinton, it's about his ability to come clean. He is no better than Clinton on that issue. Yet he is not held accountable. So while I have a problem with CBS's methods, it hasn't been proven who's really lying about the president's whereabouts when he should have been serving his country.

Yet there is a difference in an independent news agency behaving in a perceived partisan manner and the government using tax payer funds to create deception in order to promote policies that should succeed or fail on their own merit. And there is a difference in using the public forum, as both sides of any argument do, in order to state opinions, deceive, or influence (rightly or wrongly) and using tax payer money to influence the public through measures that are contrary to the American ideals of open, honest government which undermine the fundamental trust that has been forged between the American public and the type democracy that we profess to be so proud of.

In my opinion.

Encapsulation:

The POTUS was not honest and continues to be dishonest. Regardless of his reasons, he is still dishonest.
The media is not liberal and may have been dishonest, but was dishonest for a good reason - the ends justify the means.


You should change your name to equivocationchief.

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 06:23 AM
Never outright called Bush a fascist. My gripe is that his administration has little regard for honesty when it comes to pressing their agenda. We simply disagree on this issue. Fake newscasts intended to fool the public by running on local newscast around the country are beyond the bounds of honest and open government. Running ads espousing a point of view are perfectly within bounds. Passing opinions off as news is not.

As far as balance in reporting goes, very much of what Clinton was mercilessly skewered for has never gone beyond day one with most of the media when it pertains to Bush.
Again, the White House is not presenting newscasts to the general public. Why do you continue this lie? What media centers are displaying the "newscasts"? Do you have links? Why is the government responsible for the media centers actions?

penchief
03-21-2005, 04:17 PM
Again, the White House is not presenting newscasts to the general public. Why do you continue this lie? What media centers are displaying the "newscasts"? Do you have links? Why is the government responsible for the media centers actions?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=155163

KCWolfman
03-21-2005, 04:19 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=155163
Did the White House buy a public access television station while I was sleeping? Or did some agency (like the character flawed CBS) play this clip without assigning who the source was?