Unethical deal ends column, credibility

January 11, 2005

[:"blue"] Let's see, for a price, you can buy political commentary from a single source, and have that same source influence the new community.....Who does this? Well, well well. Another Bush "morals" coup..... Hey, 51% of you voted for him[/]

A penny for his thoughts. The administration may have broken U.S. laws against domestic propaganda when it paid pundit Armstrong Williams.

When a journalist writes a glowing account of a government initiative, the subjects sometimes chortle: "You can't buy that kind of publicity for a million dollars."

But in the case of the Bush administration and its Department of Education, it turns out that you can - and for the bargain price of $241,000 in taxpayer funds.

That's the sum that television and newspaper commentator Armstrong Williams received from the department for agreeing to promote the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind education reform legislation. Williams says that the contract he signed with Ketchum Inc., a public relations firm hired by the Education Department, not only paid for advertisements during his show but also to "regularly comment on the No Child Left Behind act during the course of his broadcasts" and to encourage other producers to do so as well.

Denver Post

January 12, 2005

Two words: Bush Hate.

When will it end?

January 12, 2005

Not by a longshot Shane. "Bush hate" is not, and cannot be, responsible for what those in the Bush administration actually DO. This particular incident was the responsibility of the Education department, not of someone noticing its impropriety and making it public knowledge. That would be like saying if I told a lie and someone found me out and called me on it, that there was no real issue of my lying having any responsibility for that now being out in the public and people knowing about it; rather it was just "Nico hate" going on.

Bzzzzt, wrong answer, thank you for playing!! NEXT??

Here's some more about the incident in question:

White House: "No Child Left Behind" commentator case was isolated

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Jan. 10, 2005 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House said Monday that the

case of the Education Department paying a conservative commentator to plug

its policies was an isolated incident, not a practice widely used by the

Bush administration.

With the Education Department still defending its $240,000 contract with

syndicated columnist and TV personality Armstrong Williams, White House

spokesman Scott McClellan was cautious in choosing his comments.

"Questions have been raised about that arrangement, it ought to be looked

into, and there are ways to look into matters of that nature," McClellan

said. The spokesman did not say precisely who should look into it, and

stopped short of backing an inquiry by the department's inspector-general,

as some lawmakers have sought. He noted that department lawyers have taken

up the matter.

McClellan said the news media "ought to be reporting in an objective,

unbiased and fair manner."

"The government certainly has a responsibility to help when it comes to

providing accurate information and helping to adhere to that principle," he

said.

McClellan said he knew of no other contract in the administration like the

one Williams had. He also hinted that Williams shared the blame.

"There are also questions about whether or not this commentator should have

been disclosing the information publicly," McClellan said.

The contract required Williams' company to produce radio and TV spots

featuring one-minute "reads" by Education Secretary Rod Paige and to allow

Paige and other department officials to appear as studio guests with

Williams. The commentator also was to use his influence with other black

journalists to get them to discuss No Child Left Behind, a centerpiece of

President Bush's domestic agenda, which aims to raise achievement among poor

and minority children and penalizes many schools that don't make progress.

January 12, 2005

Hey, thanks Neil. I always love to be informed how the government is spending our tax dollars.

January 12, 2005

More from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/bush.journalist.ap/

Williams called criticism of his relationship with the department "legitimate."

"It's a fine line," he told The Associated Press on Friday. "Even though I'm not a journalist -- I'm a commentator -- I feel I should be held to the media ethics standard. My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it."

Three Democratic senators -- Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Harry Reid of Nevada -- wrote Bush Friday to demand he recover the money paid to Armstrong. The lawmakers contended that "the act of bribing journalists to bias their news in favor of government policies undermines the integrity of our democracy."

Rep. George Miller of California, the top Democrat on the House education committee, asked for an inspector general investigation into whether the deal with legal and ethical. He and other Democrats also wrote Bush to call for an end to "covert propaganda."

The department's contract with Williams, through the public relations firm Ketchum, dates to 2003 and 2004. It follows another recent flap about the agency's publicity efforts.

The Bush administration has promoted No Child Left Behind with a video that comes across as a news story but fails to make clear the reporter involved was paid with taxpayer money. It has also paid for rankings of newspaper coverage of the law, with points awarded for stories that say Bush and the Republican Party are strong on education. The Government Accountability Office, Congress' auditing arm, is investigating those spending decisions.

The GAO has twice ruled that the Bush administration's use of prepackaged videos -- to promote federal drug policy and a new Medicare law -- is "covert propaganda" because the videos do not make clear to the public that the government produced the promotional news.

"There is no defense for using taxpayer dollars to pay journalists for 'fake news' and favorable coverage of a federal program," said Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, a liberal group that has tracked the department's spending

January 12, 2005

This appears to be about the politics of personal destruction. The Bush-haters are just chomping at the bit for any story they can use to push their agenda of hatred. I am surprised my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are so anxious to act as talebearers.

Now I am open minded and willing to see what the investigation turns up but it doesn't look like any big deal. Get it from the horse's mouth: My apology: Armstrong Williams

January 12, 2005

I vote with Nico on this one: the Education Department did something wrong, illegal and unethical. Saying that that is the case is not 'Bush hate'. Shane, you claim to have this deep hatred for 'spin' in all its forms. Yet labelling any negative piece of news about any branch of government automatically and unthinkingly as 'Bush hate' is as egregious an example of spin as I can imagine. You've further expressed a dislike for 'thought police' who try to shut down debate. but what purpose does the 'Bush hate' meme have except to do exactly that?

January 12, 2005

Particularly in the light of the man himself stating his agreement that criticism of his actions is indeed warranted, no less!

Williams called criticism of his relationship with the department "legitimate."

"It's a fine line," he told The Associated Press on Friday. "Even though I'm not a journalist -- I'm a commentator -- I feel I should be held to the media ethics standard. My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it."

January 12, 2005

Since when do Americans turn a blind eye to stuff like this?

If people are in the wrong, they need to answer for their deeds, either in this world or the next. That principle works for the king as well as the servant.

If it's "no big deal" why the rebuke (talebearers????) for bringing it to the discussion table?

January 12, 2005

I don't turn a blind eye to it at all! I completely agree with you. I reject the insinuation that bringing it up for discussion constitutes being "talebearers". I'm not out to bash Armstrong Williams. I see him as something of a victim here. I'm more concerned with what Bush's Education Department was thinking when they exploited this man for their own purposes. And everyone knows the "No Child Left Behind" initiative has been THE singular most disastrous failure out of everything that has come out of the Bush White House ... even Bush's fan club on the whole acknowledges it flopped miserably.

January 12, 2005

Oh, I know you don't turn a blind eye, Nico.

You'll have to forgive me for I just tacked on to the last post, so that was probably confusing to everyone. I'm just getting used to this format again.

But I was asking Neil, not you, about the "talebeares" comment. And the Bush haters comment also.

No Child Left Behind? That's a whole 'nother rant.

January 12, 2005

Shane, not Neil. Good grief, I was up way too late last night, sorry about that.

Shane, I've seen you post "Bush Hate" to a lot of different threads, what do mean by that saying? Is it just the way you categorize posts, or do you actually think there's hate in people's hearts for the man?

Just wondering where you're coming from?

January 12, 2005

Quote:

Two words: Bush Hate. When will it end?

It will end, Shane, when Bush's policies actually work or when they don't favor the rich but rather the majority of people. It will end when the "trickle down effect" is more than a steady but intermediate drip... drip.... drip...

That's when it will end, Shane.

AS for it being "Bush Hate"....that's a right wingers loaded commentary, and it's is NOT nor ever has been a Left wingers comment. Although YOU may have see it employed by a 'lefty', that doesn't mean it was used by the whole contingent.

You, Shane, are too far to the right, regardless of where YOU place the parameters. And it is evidenced when you use the right wingers language, full of emotional baggage, to post...case evidence- see the above quotation.

January 13, 2005

Sister Rosie: The phrase "Bush Hate" comes from Hollywood liberals that threw a fundraiser by that name.

The talebaring is that we have a story that each of us have heard second hand. Not one of us is an eye-witness to anything that went on. All we have are news reports. There has been no legal investigation nor any court precedings. Yet conclusions have been drawn and repeated in a whisper campain by the very ones that were so opposed to the politics of personal destruction while Clinton was in office. Smells a lot like hypocracy.

On the surface it looks like Bush used tax money to promote one of his programs. Nothing is unusual about that. Second, one of the people recieving such advertising dollars also advocated the program in his political commentary column. Was there anything more to it than that? Well let's let the powers that be investigate it and hold off drawing conclusions until more is known. Remember, none of us have first hand knowledge.

The Bush-hate comments are applicable because there are a number of journalists out there that hate Bush. There is no denying that. They jump at the chance to publish any story to damage him. If we step back and look at this we can see it is over a minor issue. This is not like Watergate, Iran-contra or even Clinton's obstruction of justice. This is about how the White House promoted a program which recieved bi-partisan support. Ted Kennedy even supported this bill.

January 13, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

You, Shane, are too far to the right, regardless of where YOU place the parameters.

I will admit to being a militant moderate. Perhaps that is too far right for you but it is well within the mainstream of Americans. I am suspecious of what is reported and don't lap up the news like a thirsty dog drinking water.

I ask myself who are these reporters and what bias to they have. What is their agenda? Are they trying to influence how I precieve reality? When I detect spin I try to find out how the other side is spinning it. I am skeptical. I am not easily convinced by either side. I am very much in the middle.

January 13, 2005

I try to read everything and process it with the knowledge that truth is usually not really on one side or another, but somewhere in the middle.

Yet, I'm not afraid to read other's opinions. That's what is so cool about all the info out there. We can read everyone's ideas and concerns, if what they say raises a red flag, put it up for further comment and discussion.

I wouldn't be too worried about criticism. I'm not so sure about the word "hate". It would be much more worrysome if there were no criticisms from the media, and only propaganda. There are problems with this Administration, the people have every right to know and discuss what they feel their government is doing or what it is not doing.

January 13, 2005

[:"blue"] "They" might go after him after all.... [/]

By GENARO ARMAS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A member of the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) said Thursday the agency should investigate whether conservative commentator Armstrong Williams broke the law by failing to disclose that the Bush administration paid him $240,000 to plug its education policies.

Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat, said the agency has received about a dozen complaints against Williams.

"I certainly hope the FCC (news - web sites) will take action and fully investigate whether any laws have been broken," Adelstein said at the commission's regular monthly meeting.

None of the other commissioners responded to his statement during the meeting. Afterward, both FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a Republican, and David Solomon, who heads the agency's enforcement bureau, declined to comment.

Generally, the FCC reviews letters and complaints before determining if there should be an investigation. Powell said he had not seen the complaints filed against Williams.

Adelstein wants the FCC to look into whether Williams violated federal telecommunication law that requires disclosure of any payment or gift for airing any material for broadcast, like a radio disc jockey being paid to play a particular recording.

Williams, a nationally syndicated radio, print and television personality, was paid by the Education Department to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. The contract required Williams' company to produce radio and TV ads that promote the controversial law and feature one-minute "reads" by Education Secretary Rod Paige. The deal also allowed Paige and other department officials to appear as studio guests with Williams.

January 14, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

AS for it being "Bush Hate"....that's a right wingers loaded commentary, and it's is NOT nor ever has been a Left wingers comment.

'Hate Bush' Event to Feature Hollywood Elite, Liberal Activists

January 14, 2005

Quote:

I try to read everything and process it with the knowledge that truth is usually not really on one side or another, but somewhere in the middle.

Yet, I'm not afraid to read other's opinions. That's what is so cool about all the info out there. We can read everyone's ideas and concerns, if what they say raises a red flag, put it up for further comment and discussion.

I think you have a very healthy attitude there Rosie. I wish mine could be more like yours. I find that I tend to sometimes be afraid of reading other people's opinions. Mostly because I hate getting angry and opinions I find senseless make me angry, but sometimes also because I'm afraid they will subtly infect my mind with some form of "poison" that will slowly destroy me. And sometimes putting it up for comment and discussion doesn't work because then people start getting out their flame throwers at you and trying to distort things and spin things and lie about things and that doesn't help either.

January 14, 2005

Quote:

Sister Rosie: The phrase "Bush Hate" comes from Hollywood liberals that threw a fundraiser by that name.

Then for God's sake (literally), let it go already. Driving it into the ground at US here on the forum, who (a) didn't come up with the fundraiser or its title; ( didn't organize it either, is not going to solve anything. Set an example and let it go already. People who hold onto something and drive it into the ground months, years after the fact -- especially with an attitude of making others "pay" for it when those others had nothing to do with it, just because of tangential association (they were left/liberal; we are left/liberal) -- just plain need to see a doctor, end of story.

Or else read 1 Corinthians 13 over again. Love keeps no record of wrongs, remember? Set the example, be the model, for what you want to see in others (which I assume is love, not hate?), and for God's sake, let go already. I know I for one am sick of being made to feel like I'm supposed to feel responsible for something I didn't do.

This is like being 13 years old all over again, where my mother for WEEKS kept referring to herself -- specifically as if speaking in MY voice -- as being a "crappy sh*t". Of course I had no freaking clue what she was on about until after about 6 or 8 weeks of this stupid game getting on my nerves for no good reason I asked her why she kept going on like that, referring to herself that way. Whereupon she first pulled out and read from (in the most smarmy, sarcasm-dripping voice she could muster), and then shoved in my face a crumpled piece of paper that I'd forgotten about entirely the moment I'd thrown it away. On this paper I'd scribbled a stupid ditty out of frustration, to the tune of a popular song at the time, expressing anger toward my parents for letting me down over some insignificant occasion. This I had immediately wadded and discarded in my bedroom trash can that same evening once it served its only purpose: getting my emotions out of my system without adversely impacting someone else over them. (Yes, it contained the phrase "crappy sh*ts" in one line of the refrain.)

So not only had she taken it upon herself to rummage through my trash can (how sick is THAT??) but she then preferred to take to heart the angry expression of a moment of pique -- an expression so "important" to me that I immediately threw it away after getting it quietly and privately out of my system, an expression never intended for her eyes in the first place -- and try to "punish" me over it repeatedly, rather than just let it go already.

Unlike the above incident, however, I had no hand in the celebrity "hate bush" fundraiser (which strikes me as a pun on Kate Bush's name -- and little else).

Let it GO Shane. This is NOT healthy behavior.

January 14, 2005

Quote:

I think you have a very healthy attitude there Rosie. I wish mine could be more like yours. I find that I tend to sometimes be afraid of reading other people's opinions. Mostly because I hate getting angry and opinions I find senseless make me angry, but sometimes also because I'm afraid they will subtly infect my mind with some form of "poison" that will slowly destroy me.

Well surely there is a Biblical mandate "by beholding we become", so there is certainly a danger of becoming infected by what we read. What you describe, (getting angry) I usually save for political "discussions" in my living room. LOL.

But rather than anger, I think fear and amazement would be more my reaction to some people. Like the religious right and their "myth of separation of church and state";"Christian Nation" commentary. Do people actually believe this stuff?

That's scary.

These discussion boards seem to have two outspoken camps, with few in the middle willing to speak up and be "fried", which is unfortunate. We should all be courageous and exercise that trait. Be able to give a reason for our beliefs. If you're a little scorched in the process, so what?

Quote:

And sometimes putting it up for comment and discussion doesn't work because then people start getting out their flame throwers at you and trying to distort things and spin things and lie about things and that doesn't help either.

Ah, I wouldn't worry too much about the flame throwers. You do pretty well dodging them. True debate is done without spin, esp. personal. I've found most people with weak positions and answers often attempt to change the subject rather than truly respond to the thoughts and concerns presented. That shows a weakness in their position.

Anyone bringing out their flame throwers have already lost the debate, imho.

January 26, 2005

[:"blue"] Ok, I am holding the 51% of you all who voted for Bush accountable. Please explain why YOUR canidate is buying conservative political writers to press his views upon the american people? Why is the journalistic press allowing this to happen when they should be discrediting these shamelless biased reporters? Whatcha gonna do, people? [/]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2005

(CBS) Conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher received $21,500 from the Bush administration to push the president's marriage initiative, the Washington Post reports. Gallagher is the second pundit reported to have received money from the administration to push Bush proposals.

The Post said Gallagher received a contract from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2002 to promote Mr. Bush's $300 million plan to encourage marriage as a means of strengthening the family.

In a related development, President Bush said he had instructed his cabinet secretaries not to put commentators on the government payroll.

"There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press," Mr. Bush said.

The Post said while working for the HHS in 2002, Gallagher wrote in her column that arguments against the president's marriage initiative were "nonsense."

The newspaper also said Gallagher had received an additional $20,000 from the administration for writing a report called "Can Government Strengthen Marriage?"

"Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher told the Post. "I don't know. You tell me."

Gallagher later wrote a column in which she said: "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."

Earlier this month, it was learned that conservative Armstrong Williams, a nationally syndicated radio, print and television commentator, was paid $240,000 by the Education Department to promote Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act.

The Post quoted Wade Horn, an HHS official, as saying Gallagher had been hired as "a well-known national expert."

"I don't see any comparison between what has been alleged with Armstrong Williams and what we did with Maggie Gallagher," Horn told the Post. "We didn't pay her to write columns. We didn't pay her to promote the president's healthy marriage initiative at all. What we wanted to do was use her expertise."

January 26, 2005

Conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher received $21,500 from the Bush administration to push the president's marriage initiative, the Washington Post reports.

The figure paid to Ms. Gallagher is considerably lower than that paid for the "No Child Left Behind" push. What get's me is our money is being handed out and the American people have absolutely nothing to show for it.

January 27, 2005

Quote:

Conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher received

$21,500

from the Bush administration to push the president's marriage initiative, the Washington Post reports.

The figure paid to Ms. Gallagher is considerably lower than that paid for the "No Child Left Behind" push. What get's me is our money is being handed out and the American people have absolutely nothing to show for it.

On the contrary, we do have something to show for it, Rosie. We have President Bush in office.

Now, I will firmly remove my tongue from between my teeth and cheeks...

January 27, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Conservative columnist Maggie Gallagher received $21,500 from the Bush administration to push the president's marriage initiative, the Washington Post reports.

The figure paid to Ms. Gallagher is considerably lower than that paid for the "No Child Left Behind" push. What get's me is our money is being handed out and the American people have absolutely nothing to show for it.

Oh, what's a few thousand here, a few thousand there -- whenever the Prez thinks his argument is a little weak...?!

Well, THAT'S the way we BANKRUPT our government.

I don't really know how we can afford another four years of this mess.

There is a movement called ImpeachBush.com [or maybe it's dot-org].

Wonder if they're accepting new members....

[How ELSE can we save our country...??]

Sign In

Unethical deal ends column, credibility

Recommended Posts

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Nicodema

Rosie

Rosie

Dr. Shane

Bravus

Nicodema

Rosie

Nicodema

Rosie

Rosie

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Rosie

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Nicodema

Nicodema

Rosie

Neil D

Rosie

Neil D

Jeannieb43

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity