Bush administration paid media to promote law

[michaeledward]

While there is some question to the legality of the Administration spending money in this way (expect a Congressional inquiry to determine if this is, or is not, the case).

A bigger issue is all the talking heads. Are they being given payolla for supporting an issue in the administration.

The First Administration to the constitution guarantees freedom of the press. A press that is on one sides' payroll is not 'Free'. If we can't be sure our opinion makers are giving us their opinions, we have lost that free press, we have lost our democracy.

 

[ghostdog2]

A bigger issue is all the talking heads. Are they being given payolla for supporting an issue in the administration. Posted by Michaeledward

Absolutely legitimate point. But, please, don't restrict it to Administration payola.
Let's find out what and how much Maureen Dowd and her ilk are getting. Water seeks its own level and I suspect that compensation of some sort changes hands at both ends of the political spectrum.

Free press ain't exactly free.

 

[michaeledward]

Let's find out what and how much Maureen Dowd and her ilk are getting.

Absolutely.

Mr. Williams stated to David Corn, editor of 'The Nation' that lots of his conservative colleagues are also on the take. Let's expose this stuff. If it's M. Dowd, then run her out of town too.

Let's change the ownership rules so that the 'Free' press can not be acquired by individual companies that may wish to push a political agenda (Sinclair Broadcasting).

How about Andrea Mitchell ... when was the last time you heard her report any conflicts of intrest based on her husbands' rather influencial position?

Everybody start calling for proper disclosure from the 'pundits'.

Here Here. I'm all for it.

m

 

[Feisty Mouse]

"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.

I'm sorry, last time I checked, we did not have an inviolate king or dictator - we have a system of government suppossedly set up with several branches, which should (hopefully) balance each other a bit. The President does not *dictate* how things should be, he (or she...please) work with (or against) Congress. Of course, right now Congress would roll over and play dead for the Prez, for the most part, shirking their duties as I see them, at least.

I have yet to have demonstrated to me that "No Child Left Behind" Act will actually be beneficial, or work, but again, a different thread.

I'm still disgusted.

 

[7starmantis]

A bigger issue is all the talking heads.

Hehe, I just started thinking of that song....Our House, in the middle of our street. Our House......

Sorry

 

[loki09789]

Hehe, I just started thinking of that song....Our House, in the middle of our street. Our House......

Sorry

I thought Madness was the group that did "Our House", Talking Heads was "Burning Down the House" if I remember correctly. Love both songs regardless of who sang what though.

Has anyone come across past practices of this kind? I mean this really isn't all that different from some of the other games that politics uses/used in other ways IMO.

Falls under the heading of "Things that we need consider when we participate in Congressional appointment voting" because the yea/nay votes of our Reps on bills is what influences what is and is not acceptable as well as enforcement.

 

[michaeledward]

Maggie Gallagher does it too...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=115&ncid=758&e=1&u=/ucmg/20050126/cm_ucmg/aquestionofdisclosure

I was not paid to promote marriage. I was paid to produce particular research and writing products (articles, brochures, presentations), which I produced. My lifelong experience in marriage research, public education and advocacy is the reason HHS hired me.


But the real truth is that it never occurred to me. On reflection, I think Howard is right. I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers.

* * * * * *

And this made headlines on CNN's website today.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/bush.paidpundits.reut/index.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries Wednesday not to pay media commentators to promote his legislative agenda, saying payments by the Education Department were improper and new leadership was now in place.

In his most direct criticism to date, Bush leveled blame at officials at the Education Department for paying conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to tout his landmark education plan, "No Child Left Behind."

Bush said it was an improper use of government funds, and told a news conference: "I expect my Cabinet secretaries to make sure that that practice doesn't go forward. There needs to be independence."

Federal communications regulators earlier this month opened an investigation into whether Williams violated a ban on "payola" in promoting the education law.

Bush said, "We didn't know about this in the White House."

Asked what will happen to officials at the Education Department who made the decision to pay Williams, Bush said: "We've got new leadership going to the Department of Education."

White House domestic policy adviser Margaret Spellings is replacing Rod Paige as education secretary.

"But all our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying, you know, commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet," Bush said.

 

[michaeledward]

The Government Accountability Office announced that these actions by the Bush Administration were, in fact, violations of the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01educ.html?ex=1285819200&en=55a295038c3630e7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
...
The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds."

Well, gee. Imagine that.

 

[arnisador]

I'm glad to see this. If they weren't, I'd want to see the law changed!

 

[JAMJTX]

Yes, this has been going on since Reagan :idunno:

Actually it was long before then. Hollywood alwasy played a role in making propaganda films and newspapers always ran made up stories. Even Walter Chronkite "the most trusted man in America" lied on his news broadcast to support his views and candidates of choice.

The only reason people seem to be complaining about this activity now are democrats who are mad over losing the White House twice in a row.

I don't see anyone complaining about the democrats starting radio and tv networks for the expressed purpose of putting a liberal spin on the news.

 

[JAMJTX]

"Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news"

Who said this and specifically what law was broken?

The NY Times, an overtly democrat paper with a long history of making up stories is hardly a reputable source for such things.

 

[arnisador]

The NY Times, an overtly democrat paper with a long history of making up stories is hardly a reputable source for such things.

But it's "The Paper of Record"!

Seriously, this seems a grossly exaggerated slam against what is after all a pillar of the journalistic community.

 

[michaeledward]

The NY Times, an overtly democrat paper with a long history of making up stories is hardly a reputable source for such things.

Didn't one of the 'overtly democrat' reporters of the New York Times just spend 85 days in jail because she didn't want to burn the Vice Presidents' Chief of Staff. And lets take a close look at her 'overtly democrat' stories about how the Weapons of Mass Destruction are just lying about Iraq.

How do you suppose a reporter that is so wrong, about so much, so often, yet seems to be so deeply in bed with the VP's Chief of Staff still has a job at such an 'overtly democrat' paper? I wonder.


Did I mention what a good job you did with Photoshop on your website. Almost looks like you are standing next to the President, I mean, except for the shadows ... and the body scale.

 

[JAMJTX]

Actually, your not as smart as you think you are because "The President" and I walked through that door together. It just turned out that we were both wearing dark clothes and the walls had that odd blue, and there are lights and cameras flashing all over the place so the lighting is weird. This was taken during the first campiagn at a rally in Wilmington, DE after spending all day working for the campaign.