Bush administration paid media to promote law

[michaeledward]

Well, whats the intent of the post? Look at what POLITICIANS are and have been doing for a long time. -or- Look at what BUSH is doing? If some partisian politicians are going to use this as some sort of hammer to use on Bush than it smacks of selective enforcement.

Who controls the White House?

Who's in Charge in the Senate?

Who's in Charge of the House of Representatives?

Who's running the Federal Communications Commision?

If the Shoe Fits .....



P.S. I see you have raised the same question in the thread . . .

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20695

Ooops ! Guess not.

 

[Zepp]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Tribune Media Services will stop distributing columns written by conservative commentator Armstrong Williams because he received money to promote President Bush's education programs, the company said.

See rest of the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/08/bush.journalist/index.html

Darn, ya beat me to the update Ceicei.

It's good to see that our media industry is, at least some-what, self-regulating. Now the questions are, should/will those in the Education Dept. who are responsible for this arrangement face consequences?

 

[Phoenix44]

Stay tuned folks...the Bush Administration is about to embark on the same media blitz for his Social Security Corporatization Plan.

 

[loki09789]

Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law

By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY



The top Democrat on the House Education Committee, Rep. George Miller of California, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." He said he will ask his Republican counterpart to join him in requesting an investigation.

Read Full Article Here

How are these advertising campaigns any different than the gun control campaigns that were common during the Clinton years?

 

[Satt]

If you're not cheatin', you're not trying. %-}

 

[Feisty Mouse]

If you're not cheatin', you're not trying. %-}

*sigh*

I would cheat to win in a fight.

I hate to think that absolute corruption is inevitable in government. We've come a long way from the Founding Fathers, if so.

 

[Makalakumu]

How are these advertising campaigns any different than the gun control campaigns that were common during the Clinton years?

There is no difference. It is government propaganda plain and simple. The lines between objective reporting and propagandization have been blurred so much that I would be hard pressed to tell the difference anymore. All this does is put something that has been happening for a long time on the public radar screen for a few seconds...

 

[raedyn]

where have you people been for the past 20 years. this is nothing new.

So just because taxpayer's money has been used questionably now, and before, and by various administrations, that's reason to stop caring? I don't think so.

And yes, some people will use this to attack Bush and his entourage selectively, as Tgace is worried they will. That's unfortunate. It would be better if, as Tulisan suggested, this could be used to try and rid government of these practices no matter who is at the helm.

As far as I'm concerned this isn't a huge digression in how taxpayers money is used. There are far worse abuses. It's normal for a governement to try and sell a new law to its citizens. Personally, I'd be more concerned about a media willing to protray paid plugs as 'news'.

 

[PeachMonkey]

How are these advertising campaigns any different than the gun control campaigns that were common during the Clinton years?

Has anyone demonstrated that the Clinton administration paid individual commentators to appear as pundits on "news" debate programs and push the gun control agenda?

The point here isn't ads, it's so-called "experts" appearing on news programs that are actually paid shills for an administration.

 

[loki09789]

There is no difference. It is government propaganda plain and simple. The lines between objective reporting and propagandization have been blurred so much that I would be hard pressed to tell the difference anymore. All this does is put something that has been happening for a long time on the public radar screen for a few seconds...

It isn't just the government. It is media. Even the reputable hard line news shows have paid for appearances/interviews of media darlings that are hot at any given moment.

The government has learned to use hollywood style PR games, hollywood has learned to use celebrity for government activism...reality tv has created instant stars...

I still don't understand the outrage. Look at the inefficiency of government contracting even in 'legitimate' cases of shipyards, maintenance.....

It is all gamesmanship. It isn't the "Bush's", the "Republicans", the "Democrats"....it is Politics/Business. Sifting through the BS is our job.

I tell my kids all the time, English Language Arts is about recognizing when and how people are trying to bend you to their will - and to what end. Then you have to be able to evaluate whether it is legit, agreeable and so on....

Being really surprised or outraged about stuff like this would mean that it was totally unexpected.....which it shouldn't be considering how informed the posters here tend to be.

 

[loki09789]

So just because taxpayer's money has been used questionably now, and before, and by various administrations, that's reason to stop caring? I don't think so.

And yes, some people will use this to attack Bush and his entourage selectively, as Tgace is worried they will. That's unfortunate. It would be better if, as Tulisan suggested, this could be used to try and rid government of these practices no matter who is at the helm.

As far as I'm concerned this isn't a huge digression in how taxpayers money is used. There are far worse abuses. It's normal for a governement to try and sell a new law to its citizens. Personally, I'd be more concerned about a media willing to protray paid plugs as 'news'.

How many millions of dollars in government paid advertising was there to promote travel after 9/11? That was government money spent so that 'big business' could benefit....or was it to revitalize the economy by getting consumers out of the house and spending their money and get the circulation of wealth going again....

I guess it is 'evil' depending on how you phrase it....

 

[Makalakumu]

It isn't just the government. It is media. Even the reputable hard line news shows have paid for appearances/interviews of media darlings that are hot at any given moment.

The government has learned to use hollywood style PR games, hollywood has learned to use celebrity for government activism...reality tv has created instant stars...

I still don't understand the outrage...

First of all, President Bush and his cronies didn't invent propaganda.

Secondly, think State run media paid for by the taxes of "everyone" whether they agree or disagree.

Thirdly, think hard about the collusion of the private and public sphere that we have cultivated in this country.

Our government branches and board rooms suddenly have the same bosses...

 

[loki09789]

First of all, President Bush and his cronies didn't invent propaganda.

Secondly, think State run media paid for by the taxes of "everyone" whether they agree or disagree.

Thirdly, think hard about the collusion of the private and public sphere that we have cultivated in this country.

Our government branches and board rooms suddenly have the same bosses...

First of all, I said I don't understand the outrage. Didn't mean that I approve of it or don't think reform is needed, but just am surprised at the emotional level of response that usually comes with shock and surprise - it should not be a surprise.

Second of all, there are many things that our tax dollars pay for, whether you like it or not.

Thirdly, it isn't just our country. We are one of the few first/second world nations that doesn't have a state media/broadcast forum...

so my question is, given the lack of detail about the contractual conditions, the nature of the agreements and the people/focus/goals of the agreements, ....why all the outrage.

If you start out outraged by the bare data, it will skew your objectivity to any new information that may come your way....thus the difference between 'judgemental/subjective' and 'interpretive/objective.' I think, like with all people, Bush's Halo is supported by his horns, true - but that doesn't mean everything that is associated with his name/administration is evil or a conspiracy.

I can project and 'think about' all kinds of things, why does it have all lead to the end of the world, the sky falling and the corruption of the American Ideal?

 

[ghostdog2]

Think of it as an infomercial. You know, sort of like all those Ronco programs that run late at night.

And perspective wouldn't hurt:
1.The Education Dept. is attempting to improve public education in this country. Hopefully, no one objects to that.

2. NCLB is a program geared to help public school students, especially those "at risk". Again, one would hope we all agree that this is a praiseworthy goal.

3. Contracting with Mr. Armstrong was an effort, however misguided, to accomplish 1 and 2 above.

Minority i.e. Black students and their mentors (such as there are) are traditionally hard to reach, especially for the Republican Party. This administration decided to try a little something different. It backfired. So???
There are lots of reasons to see dangers under the bed, is this really one of them? Promoting education bills for the underprivleged?

Give Bush a pass on this. It may be clumsy, but it's not sinister.

 

[michaeledward]

Give Bush a pass on this. It may be clumsy, but it's not sinister.

And every time you hear Cal Thomas, George Will, Laura Ingraham, Andrew Sullivan, et al, hope they are being paid as well as Armstrong for their support.

Hell, for a Quarter of a Million dollars, I might even become a mouthpiece for BushII.

 

[ghostdog2]

You'll have to beat me to it.....

 

[raedyn]

1.The Education Dept. is attempting to improve public education in this country. Hopefully, no one objects to that.
2. NCLB is a program geared to help public school students, especially those "at risk". Again, one would hope we all agree that this is a praiseworthy goal.

I doubt there would be anyone here that would argue with the noble aim of the program, but there are some who would disagree with the approach. (That, however, is a debate for another thread).

3. Contracting with Mr. Armstrong was an effort, however misguided, to accomplish 1 and 2 above.

Well not quite. They paid him to try and convince people it was the right approach, not to actually deliver the program. Nothing he was paid to do would actually improve schooling.

 

[Phoenix44]

I cannot believe that some of you think it's OK to use our money to advance a political agenda. First, fake video news releases which were not identified as paid for by the Dept of Education masquerading as "news." Next, payola to a hack to chat up a political objective.

Sorry, that is NOT the same as using ads designed to encourage travel after 9/11. This is using taxpayer money to advance a partisan political agenda without revealing its source. And its illegal.

When I contribute money to a partisan cause, it is not tax-deductible. And our taxes should not be used to advance the Bush agenda. Period.

Watch--they're going to pull the same stunt to push the phase out of Social Security. I can't wait to see the "news reports" with those realistic-looking workers worried about their retirement and begging for that big $1000/year to invest in the stock market (while their promised benefits are slashed by 30% and the deficit balloons).

Either that, or they'll just issue a "terror alert" so everyone forgets about it.

 

[ghostdog2]

"I cannot believe that some of you think it's OK to use our money to advance a political agenda." Posted by Phoenix44

If you think legislation designed to help educate public school children is "a political agenda" I don't want to know what you call good government.

Similarly, if NCLB is a political objective, we need more like it.

I know, I know, this was money we could have given the U.N. or used for condom distribution in Central Africa. It just got mistakenly sidetracked to a good cause. We'll try not to let it happen again.

 

[ghostdog2]

"And our taxes should not be used to advance the Bush agenda. Period." Posted by Phoenix44

I know I should let it go, but.....
He's the PRESIDENT, his "agenda" is advanced by your tax dollars. It's called Administration Policy, aka The Law of the Land. His JOB is to formulate, administer and apply his policies to the governance of this country. Which includes formulating and proposing legislation like NCLB.
Get it now? He's just doing his job.