"Payola" and our precious democracy

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Remember the Armstrong Williams "Payolagate" scandal? As a taxpayer, I'd like to know, "How deep does this little rabbit hole go?"

<My Partisan Commentary>
If there is any wonder by those on the right as to why people like myself feel this administration cannot be trusted with anything, I present to you the latest atrocity against a free and democratic press, committed by the "ministry of propaganda" currently in residence at the White House:
</My Partisan Commentary>

(Via: Washington Post)

"In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.

But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal, reveals Howard Kurtz in Wednesday runs of the WASHINGTON POST.

"The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children."

Gallagher explains to Kurtz: "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: "We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio."


Yes, Maggie, you did.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Drew,

You never answered my question from the previous thread, which I posted no less than 3 times, and now is as good a time as ever...(See Below)

Your Comment:

Oh, and Armstrong Williams should be punished to the fullest extent of whatever laws apply to him, and I hope to see him not only lose everything his fame and notoriety got him, but that he's forced to take some "burger-flipping" job to support himself so that he never forgets the betrayal of the trust of American people in him.

My Question:
What about the people who used our tax dollars to pay him (and now Maggie)?
Same standards there? Or no?

mrC

[DrewKaree]

My Question:
What about the people who used our tax dollars to pay him (and now Maggie)?
Same standards there? Or no?

Since I will remove some of the penance, the standard will be different, as is the idea that they are not to support their programs.

You wish to compare a member of the media to this administration.  The people who used our tax dollard to pay him should be held to the same standard, minus the burger flipping. 

[iwillfearnoevil]

actually this seems to be bogus now if you read the story and not just the drudge blurb that you posted: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36545-2005Jan25.html?nav=rss_politics

funny how you libs are so into half truths, you don't even read the source you link just as your "leaders" can't be bothered with reading things such as iraq war declaration.

from GlennReynolds.com
But the actual story from Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post makes clear that Gallagher was actually paid for other work, and in one case the "federal money" was merely money from a nonprofit organization that got federal grants.

[locash]

That's funny 'W' seems to think it's a real issue.  Or is he one of the "libs" you are referring to?

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

[iwillfearnoevil]

That's funny 'W' seems to think it's a real issue.

[locash]

Apparently, you didn't read the link I provided or you might have seen this:

"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.

He is not speaking directly about Williams, he is speaking directly against the policy of paying commentators to advance his agenda.

In addition, in the Reynolds piece you cite it says "...in one case the "federal money" was merely money from a nonprofit organization that got federal grants."  I'll point out what you obviously missed, there are other cases where she received money directly from the government (HSS) to advance this adgenda.

For the record, I am not sure that I meet anyones criteria for being a 'lib'.  But if you don't mind humoring me, perhaps you could define the term?   

[iwillfearnoevil]

other means other than paying her to support the agenda. one specific case was cited. there was other word she did. this is different than the armstrong case which is a big deal. she was not paid like armstrong to support the case. grammar makes a big difference in how you read stuff online especially if you don't want to jump to wild conclusions.

[locash]

No, you are wrong.  In this case, other clearly means she was paid in other ways to support the same agenda.  The Washington Post report cites at least two cases.  The first indicates that she had a contact with HSS to write an article (among other things) in support of the president's agenda.

But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. Her work under the contract, which ran from January through October 2002, included drafting a magazine article for the HHS official overseeing the initiative, writing brochures for the program and conducting a briefing for department officials.

The other case, she received money from a Federal grant to write a separate report.

Gallagher received an additional $20,000 from the Bush administration in 2002 and 2003 for writing a report, titled "Can Government Strengthen Marriage?", for a private organization called the National Fatherhood Initiative. That report, published last year, was funded by a Justice Department grant, said NFI spokesman Vincent DiCaro.

So, what's a 'lib'?

[fredster]

I agree, it's a bad way to use money.  The press and the government need to be two separte entities.

It's interesting that people who seem to be press are actually taking money to promote "products" huh?    If the government can pay them off, then anybody can.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

grammar makes a big difference in how you read stuff online especially if you don't want to jump to wild conclusions.

Shorter jened: "I'm on the payroll too!"

Maybe you should consult w/ Maggie, since it seems she want ahead and jumped to conclusions too.

From Maggie Gallagher: (after a bunch of excuses for why it was "OK")
"I certainly had no intention or motive to hide my work from anyone. As a journalist, however, when the question is raised 'Should you have disclosed?' the answer is always, yes. It was a mistake on my part not to have disclosed any government contract. It will not happen again."


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Drew/Fredster,

Much respect for being stand-up guys on this one. It's clearly wrong and I'm happy to see we agree on this issue.

I'm probably going to go a step further and say that we, the American public, should demand a full and complete investigation into this potential mismanagement of our money. Anything short of that is pure neglect of our civic duty and our forefathers would be ashamed.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There are more...

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.

Three strikes... Didn't Bush originally say something about bringing integrity back to the White House? This is a disgrace.

mrC

[fredster]

I agree, the press and the government needs to be separate, or at least disclosed that they are working together, that way we know the angles.

It should be equally as disturbing to see how money and ideology are so easily mixed in journalism.  I'm also worried about the influnce we see with companies buying influence in the newspaper editorial pages.

We are looking at this because of the Government's angle.  If you saw these guys on TV talking about it, this isn't a new practice, so we really don't know how long or how far it reaches.  And what about huge companies buying off newspaper reports?  To me that's just as chilling.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If you saw these guys on TV talking about it, this isn't a new practice, so we really don't know how long or how far it reaches.  And what about huge companies buying off newspaper reports?  To me that's just as chilling.

Personally, I think cable "news" has led to the downfall of journalism in this country. Once they added extra fervor to the ratings game and coupled that w/ "edu-tainment" quality reporting...this is what you get, a complete and utter lack of integrity throughout.

I don't want Democratic pundits shilling for their man by presenting slanted news stories any more than I want Republican pundits cramming bought-n-paid-for stories down my throat. I want facts, and I want it without singing and dancing. If I want to surround myself with ideological punditry I visit my favorite self-proclaimed lefty blogs, were I *know* I'm getting editorialized commentary.

I wish we had liability laws like the U.K., because from what I understand, journalists there are held to a much higher standard on the stories they report. These latest revelations of payola would have brought down administrations of the past, why aren't they even feeling any heat yet? If I were a republican, let alone a conservative republican (since tax-dollars are involved), I'd be furious over these allegations. Does the constituency on the right demand accountability for things like this? Fredster, have you written to people about this? 

I wrote CBS and admonished them re: "Rathergate"...and I'm an evil Libuuuruuul.

mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Personally, I think cable "news" has led to the downfall of journalism in this country. Once they added extra fervor to the ratings game and coupled that w/ "edu-tainment" quality reporting...this is what you get, a complete and utter lack of integrity throughout.

That has been the case with the news always. You have never been able to get a true account of anything by reading or watching someone else's account of something. 

Luckily the majority of people can see past the media's agenda.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Luckily the majority of people can see past the media's agenda.

Riiiiiiiiight.