It's a Trend

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/...anus/index.html

(by subscription)

 

The juicy bits:

One day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, and one day after the second high-profile conservative pundit was found to be on the federal payroll, a third embarrassing hire has emerged. Salon has confirmed that Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, "Ethics & Religion," appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.

 

Responding to the latest revelation, Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at HHS, announced Thursday that HHS would institute a new policy that forbids the agency from hiring any outside expert or consultant who has any working affiliation with the media. "I needed to draw this bright line," Horn tells Salon. "The policy is being implemented and we're moving forward."

 

Horn's move came on the heels of Wednesday's report in the Washington Post that HHS had paid syndicated columnist and marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher $21,000 to write brochures and essays and to brief government employees on the president's marriage initiative. Gallagher later wrote in her column that she would have revealed the $21,000 payment to readers had she recalled receiving it.

 

The Gallagher revelation came just three weeks after USA Today reported that the Education Department, through a contract with the Ketchum public relations firm, paid $240,000 to Armstrong Williams, a conservative African-American print, radio and television pundit, to help promote Bush's No Child Left Behind program to minority audiences.

[Rex Kickass]

The Democratic Response: "The Stop Government Propaganda Act"

 

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000778976

[AngelasDaddy0427]

This is such a shock...

Seriously though every politician has someone in their pocket.

[FlaSoxxJim]

"The policy is being implemented and we're moving forward."

 

Which is effectively saying "PLEASE STOP LOOKING BACKWARD, because you're just hitting the tip of the icegerg on this and we'd rather you stopped."

 

Seriously though every politician has someone in their pocket.

 

But this is not 'some politician.' This is the federal government's Dept. of Health and Human Services employing a payola scam to buy recognized experts' very media-visable support of controversial Administration-backed and agendized policies.

 

It's bad enough that entire govermnet agencies are being strongarmed into implementing policies they do not believe in - but it is their job and they can quit if they don't like it. It is entirely another matter to have purported experts from various fields lend vocal support and therefore tacit approval to these policies not because they have objectively concluded theat they are sound, but because they are being thrown a big fat bone.

 

And amazingly, it never occurred to these tools that there might be a conflict of interest or that ethically they should maybe disclose that their "expert opinion" has been bought.

[Texsox]

Thought number one, this current Administration probably didn't invent this. How long until we find out that this reaches way back? I will be shocked if this didn't happen during Clinton administration as well.

 

At least the people that accepted the money are also the same ones that reasonably would have been accepted to approve of the plan even without the money. Maybe we are talking government waste here?

 

Personally, IMHO, any columnist who has accepted money like this should be looking for new work.

[southsider2k5]

Personally, IMHO, any columnist who has accepted money like this should be looking for new work.

 

 

Richie Daley could be interested....

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The Democratic Response: "The Stop Government Propaganda Act"

 

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000778976

 

 

If that's the case then the NY Times, Washington Post and Boston Herald and LA Times would all have to close down. They have been shilling for the left for decades.

 

This stuff works 2 ways.

[Texsox]

If that's the case then the NY Times, Washington Post and Boston Herald and LA Times would all have to close down.  They have been shilling for the left for decades.

 

This stuff works 2 ways.

 

I wonder if they knew they could be paid for shilling for the right if they would change? I wonder how much Rush, Hannity, Fox, and the rest of the GOP Media Network are getting paid?

 

If Rush isn't, shouldn't he be pissed? No one is a bigger champion of GOP strategy than Rush. All those hundreds of thousands of dollars and he isn't getting any taste?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I wonder if they knew they could be paid for shilling for the right if they would change? I wonder how much Rush, Hannity, Fox, and the rest of the GOP Media Network are getting paid?

 

If Rush isn't, shouldn't he be pissed? No one is a bigger champion of GOP strategy than Rush. All those hundreds of thousands of dollars and he isn't getting any taste?

 

 

LOL! Actually, Rush is well compensated for his efforts. However, all the sources you mentioned ( save for Fox News ) are COMMENTATORS, not newsmen. Commentators give their opinion of issues and that's it. Newsmen are supposed to be unbiased. There'a a huge difference.

[Rex Kickass]

The people that are being paid off to schill for the government are columnists, i.e. commentators. However, its poor ethics and irresponsible to pretend that the opinon comment that you're peddling isn't being paid for.

 

It's irresponsible, and most probably illegal - not on the part of the columnists, but on the part of the administration.

[Texsox]

LOL!  Actually, Rush is well compensated for his efforts.  However,  all the sources you mentioned ( save for Fox News ) are COMMENTATORS, not newsmen.  Commentators give their opinion of issues and that's it.  Newsmen are supposed to be unbiased.  There'a a huge difference.

 

How noble, the administration is only paying off poor commentators. And we thought they didn't have a plan for helping the poor. LOL.

 

They paid off minor columnists, but nothing for Rush? Again, shouldn't he be pissed? You know, I little something for the effort? If you were looking to pay someone shouldn't you go to the top? Isn't that a better use of our tax dollars? If the administration is going to pay off columnists, I want the best value and Rush and Hannity would be the best value. Quit wasting our money on minor league columnists in 50 papers.

 

As I mentioned, I will be shocked if the Bush Administration invented this. Give it time, someone will unearth other payments from the Clinton White House.

 

Nuke, care to write what your pithy commentary if this was Clinton? You'd be all over his ass for wasting tax dollars that should have gone to fighting terrorists or something.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

How noble, the administration is only paying off poor commentators. And we thought they didn't have a plan for helping the poor. LOL.

 

They paid off minor columnists, but nothing for Rush? Again, shouldn't he be pissed? You know, I little something for the effort? If you were looking to pay someone shouldn't you go to the top? Isn't that a better use of our tax dollars? If the administration is going to pay off columnists, I want the best value and Rush and Hannity would be the best value. Quit wasting our money on minor league columnists in 50 papers.

 

As I mentioned, I will be shocked if the Bush Administration invented this. Give it time, someone will unearth other payments from the Clinton White House.

 

Nuke, care to write what your pithy commentary if this was Clinton? You'd be all over his ass for wasting tax dollars that should have gone to fighting terrorists or something.

 

 

I didn't say I agreed with this if it's in fact true? Cause I don't.

 

That pithy enough for you?

Edited January 28, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[Rex Kickass]

When the columnists themselves admit to taking money, it's true.

[southsider2k5]

Its conflict on interest on one side, and at least unethical if not illegal on the otherside. The sad thing is I am surprised it took this long to come out.

[Rex Kickass]

And now levity:

 

Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it take to screw in a

light

bulb?

 

A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are

improving every day. Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a

delusional spin from the liberal media. That light bulb has served

honorably, and anything you say undermines the lighting effect. Why

do you

hate freedom?

[Texsox]

To swerve this from political swipes, what should the governments role in propaganda be? Should our government be allowed to advertise, plant stories, pay commentators, etc. to champion government policies?

 

As I mentioned earlier, I doubt Dubya and Chaney thought this stuff up on their own. If it didn't happen under Clinton, I will be really shocked. I don't see this as much as a DEM or GOP issue, but a role of our government.

 

I do believe it is appropriate for the government to promote policies and programs. Perhaps they could do even better when someone like Lesko can write a book that lists government programs and make money. Taking ads out, printing up fliers in various languages, hosting community outreach events all seem like valid uses of our taxes. Paying someone to write an opinion piece just seems wrong.

 

When I listen to a commentator, I want to believe it is not a paid political commercial. I understand that Fox panders to the right for better ratings and more money, like the LA Times does for the left. I would hate to believe in addition to the advertising, their staff was being paid by the White House. Further, it's our White House regardless if we voted for the President or not. His duty is to all Americans.

 

Again, this issue highlights the b.s. in our current political climate. Defend anything "your" guy does and attack anything "my" guy does. It's dividing the country. This shouldn't be a partisan attack on the GOP, but rather a taxpayer's attack on the government for wasting our tax dollars. Can anyone justify the government paying a columnist?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

And now levity:

 

Q: How many Bush Administration officials does it  take to screw in a

light

bulb?

 

A: None. There is nothing wrong with the light bulb; its conditions are

improving every day.  Any reports of its lack of incandescence are a

delusional spin from the liberal media.  That light bulb has served

honorably, and anything you say undermines the  lighting effect.  Why

do you

hate freedom?

 

 

LOL!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

To swerve this from political swipes, what should the governments role in propaganda be? Should our government be allowed to advertise, plant stories, pay commentators, etc. to champion government policies?

 

As I mentioned earlier, I doubt Dubya and Chaney thought this stuff up on their own. If it didn't happen under Clinton, I will be really shocked. I don't see this as much as a DEM or GOP issue, but a role of our government.

 

I do believe it is appropriate for the government to promote policies and programs. Perhaps they could do even better when someone like Lesko can write a book that lists government programs and make money. Taking ads out, printing up fliers in various languages, hosting community outreach events all seem like valid uses of our taxes. Paying someone to write an opinion piece just seems wrong.

 

When I listen to a commentator, I want to believe it is not a paid political commercial. I understand that Fox panders to the right for better ratings and more money, like the LA Times does for the left. I would hate to believe in addition to the advertising, their staff was being paid by the White House. Further, it's our White House regardless if we voted for the President or not. His duty is to all Americans.

 

Again, this issue highlights the b.s. in our current political climate. Defend anything "your" guy does and attack anything "my" guy does. It's dividing the country. This shouldn't be a partisan attack on the GOP, but rather a taxpayer's attack on the government for wasting our tax dollars. Can anyone justify the government paying a columnist?

 

 

There is no justification for this. It's flat out wrong and even the biggest Republican around here ( me ) wont dispute that. It sounds striking like Chicago machine politics to me.

[Texsox]

I didn't say I agreed with this  if it's in fact true? Cause I don't.

 

That pithy enough for you?

 

It lacks the usual effort you would give if it was like someone from Hamas getting wasted or the offspring of a DEM getting busted for slashing tires.

 

By the way, it was public records that revealed the payments. Our government cannot hide most spending from our eyes. At this point, the payments are not considered illegal, they just raise an ethical debate.

 

I also would prefer to not call it a Bush initiative. Calling it a government initiative better frames the debate. Our government had a policy they were wishing to promote, they paid commentators to write nice things about it. Is that a good use of tax payers money?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It lacks the usual effort you would give if it was like someone from Hamas getting wasted or the offspring of a DEM getting busted for slashing tires.

 

By the way, it was public records that revealed the payments. Our government cannot hide most spending from our eyes. At this point, the payments are not considered illegal, they just raise an ethical debate.

 

I also would prefer to not call it a Bush initiative. Calling it a government initiative better frames the debate. Our government had a policy they were wishing to promote, they paid commentators to write nice things about it. Is that a good use of tax payers money?

 

 

Yeah, but hearing about someone from Hamas getting wasted brightens my day ( Damn I miss I4E )

 

Like I said. I think this is a wrongful use of taxpayer money.

Edited January 28, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND

[southsider2k5]

Hey Nuke, could I ask a favor and see if anyone can shrink your sig a little bit?

[Texsox]

There is no justification for this.  It's flat out wrong and even the biggest Republican around here ( me ) wont dispute that.  It sounds striking like Chicago machine politics to me.

 

Which is why I'm guessing it has been done before, and I wouldn't be surprised if it reached back to Kennedy or before.

 

If the Department took ads out in major newspapers and on various talk shows to promote the policy initiative, would that have been ok in your eyes? I am leaning towards yes. The administration also has access to all the talk shows and Sunday morning news magazines.

 

For programs, I am solidly in favor of the government spending money to promote the program. What good is a program if no one knows it exists?

[Texsox]

Yeah,  but hearing about someone from Hamas getting wasted brightens my day  ( Damn I miss I4E )

 

Like I said.  I think this is a wrongful use of taxpayer money.

 

Scary enough, I also miss 4E.

[Rex Kickass]

Big difference between a program and an initiative.

 

If there's a new SSI program and Social Security wants to make its existence known, fine. If Social Security Administration wants to spend money to push for the deconstruction and privatization of the retirement insurance policy that the government keeps for all Americans, I'm against that.

 

This issue is all about "crossing the line."

[southsider2k5]

Which is why I'm guessing it has been done before, and I wouldn't be surprised if it reached back to Kennedy or before.

 

If the Department took ads out in major newspapers and on various talk shows to promote the policy initiative, would that have been ok in your eyes? I am leaning towards yes. The administration also has access to all the talk shows and Sunday morning news magazines.

 

For programs, I am solidly in favor of the government spending money to promote the program. What good is a program if no one knows it exists?

 

I have no problem with it, as long as they are making it obvious that they are presenting the opinion. Then people know who it is and can process it for FWIW to make their own opinions. It is much different to pay someone else off to do to the samething and not tell someone why they are supporting something.