Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-26-2005, 04:38 AM   #1 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Bush payoffs to yet another journalist are uncovered

Well, this certainly tells us something about how the GOP plans to deal with the "liberal media." Just throw money at it and buy it off. Come to find out, it's not only Armstrong Williams who got paid off to shill for the administration. Now we have a second so-called "journalist" who was on the Bush payroll to hype his ideas in return for a nice paycheck. So much for conservative griping about liberal media tactics. Quite obviously, we have an administration that spends taxpayer money like it was a partisan campaign contribution. And to think that Republicans have spent years griping about big-money Democrats who make political contributions to the party of their choice. Who cares about big-money Democrats when you can just waltz into the White House and seize TAXPAYER dollars for your own party agenda?


Quote:
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.

"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."

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.

"Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "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.

Later in the day, Gallagher filed a column in which she said that "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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...25.html?sub=AR
CShine is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 05:41 AM   #2 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe we can take bets on who we'll find next has been in on the payola. Probably most of the right wing pundits have their fingers crossed that they won't be outed next week.

Like I said before, I never contributed to Bush. I want my money back.
raveneye is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 05:43 AM   #3 (permalink)
Addict
 
braisler's Avatar
 
Location: Midway, KY
It isn't enough that the conservative media is out there in force prettying up any initiative that the current administration puts forth, now they have to hire people to espouse the values of their programs. I have never given much credence to the diatribes of right-wing media personalities, but I was under the, apparently naive, impression that the views they were spouting were their own legimately held viewpoints. I wouldn't have any problem with a journalist or anyone else voicing their opinion in whatever format is available to them. But to be paid to support a particular viewpoint. That is a conflict of interest at the very least!

I predict a backlash against this type of abuse of the press. Every journalistic story on any political topic now must be called into question as to whether the views in the article are those freely held by the author, or those they are paid to support by some outside party. This is a very dangerous trend where journalism and advertising are mixed. It isn't a far stretch from paying journalists to write a piece in support of a particular program to paying journalists to suppress or create facts from thin air.
braisler is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 06:24 AM   #4 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
The worst part is these people see nothing wrong, and don't even consider it bribery.

Nice WH we got, bribing journalists to propagandize for themselves and one that likes to shop the name of an undercover CIA agent to journalists to out her/endanger her life so they can scare off her disgruntled husband.

I don't see how anyone can trust anything that comes out of the Whitehouse.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 07:49 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
funny how nobody seemed to complain when the clinton administration did it.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 08:15 AM   #6 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
funny how nobody seemed to complain when the clinton administration did it.
Well Put.

We all know that if one side is doing it then the other is as well.
wnker85 is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 08:44 AM   #7 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
funny how nobody seemed to complain when the clinton administration did it.
Feel free to cite any evidence you have that Clinton did anything like this. Who got the payoff? How much was it?

If Clinton had done anything similar to what Bush is doing, the Republicans would have crucified him for it.
raveneye is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 08:47 AM   #8 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnker85
Well Put.

We all know that if one side is doing it then the other is as well.
Do we? i don't mean to be a wise ass, but i genuinely don't know of this occurring with Clinton. I'd be interested to know if it had.
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 08:57 AM   #9 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i am not sure that it matters to the right whether clinton in fact did something or not--as the embodiment of Evil, clinton can have anything and everything attributed to him. what matters is dissolving the particular actions/policies and their consequences into some mush.

on the payoff revelations: i assumed from the outset that there had to be a justification for support that was not connected to the policies themselves. cash payments would explain it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 08:59 AM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by raveneye
Feel free to cite any evidence you have that Clinton did anything like this. Who got the payoff? How much was it?

If Clinton had done anything similar to what Bush is doing, the Republicans would have crucified him for it.
according to THIS

According to confidential sources, the Clinton administration, having
defended McCaffrey's payola program, is planning to use his novel approach
to aid enforcement of other laws, as well. Their priorities are
predictable. For programs to air between April 1 and April 15th,
broadcasters will be paid hefty sums by the IRS to insert subliminal
messages into prime-time shows: "I WANT TO PAY MY TAXES. I WANT TO PAY MY
TAXES."

An anonymous Clinton aide projects wide applications of McCaffrey's approach
in government. "An ounce of brainwashing is worth a pound of enforcement,"
he said. American law and politics may never be the same.


Also, according to this NYT article (requires registration)

"The Clinton administration was probably even more active than the Bush administration" in distributing news segments promoting its policies, said Laurence Moskowitz, chairman and chief executive of Medialink, a major producer of promotional news segments. After the Government Accountability Office decision last spring, he said, his firm began advising government clients to disclose each tape's nature in its script.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 09:12 AM   #11 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
For programs to air between April 1 and April 15th,
broadcasters will be paid hefty sums by the IRS to insert subliminal
messages into prime-time shows: "I WANT TO PAY MY TAXES. I WANT TO PAY MY
TAXES."
Um . . . That's satire. Do you seriously believe Clinton had TV broadcasters insert subliminal "I WANT TO PAY MY TAXES" messages?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
"The Clinton administration was probably even more active than the Bush administration" in distributing news segments promoting its policies,
Distributing news segments promoting its policies is not the same as paying off journalists.

I repeat. Who got the payola? How much was it? If Clinton had been doing this, he'd be ripped a new one by Republicans.
raveneye is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 09:39 AM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
will THIS work for you?

January 15, 2000 | Is the White House involved in prime-time propaganda? Not surprisingly, the White House says no.

In press briefings Friday, both President Clinton and White House press secretary Jim Lockhart denied that an arrangement with the entertainment industry to insert anti-drug messages into TV programming is inappropriate. Salon News first uncovered the arrangement Wednesday with an original investigative report by Daniel Forbes.


The White House response -- and some of the media coverage of the arrangement -- have focused on the benign content of the messages and the positive public health impact they are designed to make on the viewing public. They have repeatedly described the arrangement as a "partnership," rather than a coercive contract.

And drug czar Barry McCaffrey, appearing on CNN's "Talk Back Live," even gave it at least partial credit for a 13-percent reduction in teenage drug use. But while McCaffrey denied any attempt at coercion, he confirmed every detail in the story, documenting the covert relationship.

In a press briefing with reporters, Lockhart replied to a question about whether the covert White House review of scripts in exchange for millions of advertising money constitutes payola. "I'm not sure I even know what the definition of payola is or how it applies here." He went on to say he found it "worthwhile to try to find innovative ways to get the message particularly to young people about the dangers of drugs."

When asked, "You don't think it's deceptive?" Lockhart replied, "I don't. I don't think -- I think there is a real benefit to getting the message out."

Any skepticism about the ethical implications of the government editing messages into TV programs without the public's knowledge was referred to the networks' motives. "As far as sort of theological questions for the entertainment industry," Lockhart said, "I suggest you put that to the entertainment industry."

President Clinton on Friday afternoon answered reporters' questions in the Roosevelt Room after giving a set of remarks on airline safety. He was asked if the arrangement is "right" and if the administration is considering using a similar method to deliver other sorts of messages (anti-gun violence or sexual abstinence, for example).

Clinton responded that he thinks the program is "a good thing" and that he knows of no such plans to expand it. "I've talked to a lot of people in the entertainment community who liked the idea that without compromising the integrity of their programs, they might be involved in all kinds of public service efforts," Clinton said.

As for White House drug czar McCaffrey, who oversees the arrangement, Clinton says, "I think this guy's intense and passionate and committed and we've got way too many kids using drugs, still."

On Friday, most national newspapers put the story on Page A1. These include the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. The Wall Street Journal, which also placed the story on its front page, took a more skeptical look at the inappropriateness of the relationship between the government and the networks.

The Washington Post online added a satirical piece to its coverage of the deal. Joel Achenbach observed other pernicious forms of White House influence in Hollywood. For $10,000, on Perry Mason, a character named "Mr. Starr" is held in contempt of court and is thrown into "Oz" prison. Then, for $30,000, "hard-to-watch things" happen to Starr in "Oz" prison, where he confesses under duress that he is part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy."
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 09:50 AM   #13 (permalink)
Pickles
 
ObieX's Avatar
 
Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)
That money could have been better spent doing things like putting armor on our soldiers and paying off (or preventing some) national debt. They could have also not taken it from us in the first place. How does stuff like this find it's way into the budget? Who approves this stuff? Which department is this draining needed funds from?

If Clinton did it he was wrong too. "But, Clinton did it!! waaAaaAaAaAah!" Is NOT an excuse. You fuck over people and you're gonna get what's coming to you, no matter who else did the same thing before you. This administration seems to love shuffling the blame off to others. It was NOT Clinton who paid off these "journalists", no matter how much the administration would like to blame him for all their faults and wrong choices.
__________________
We Must Dissent.
ObieX is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 09:55 AM   #14 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
No matter which leader does it (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, etc.), bribery is wrong. Bribing the media to tell only one side of a story is wrong. This is wrong. It must stop.
Willravel is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 10:07 AM   #15 (permalink)
Born Against
 
raveneye's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
will THIS work for you?
I'm sorry, not every googled link that contains the words "payola" and "Clinton" supports the proposition that Clinton bribed journalists to promote his partisan agendas.

This one included, for the reason I already gave above.
raveneye is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 10:24 AM   #16 (permalink)
Loser
 
Location: manhattan
Quote:
Originally Posted by CShine
Well, this certainly tells us something about how the GOP plans to deal with the "liberal media." Just throw money at it and buy it off. Come to find out, it's not only Armstrong Williams who got paid off to shill for the administration. Now we have a second so-called "journalist" who was on the Bush payroll to hype his ideas in return for a nice paycheck. So much for conservative griping about liberal media tactics. Quite obviously, we have an administration that spends taxpayer money like it was a partisan campaign contribution. And to think that Republicans have spent years griping about big-money Democrats who make political contributions to the party of their choice. Who cares about big-money Democrats when you can just waltz into the White House and seize TAXPAYER dollars for your own party agenda?





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...25.html?sub=AR
Those are some very selective quotes from Gallagher in the article WP article posted. Gallagher's complete explanation (non-snipped) and a few more details that may be of interest can be read here.......

Quote:
"First the facts. In 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services approached me to do some work on marriage issues for the government, including a presentation of the social science evidence on the benefits of marriage for HHS regional managers, to draft an essay for Wade Horn, assistant secretary of HHS, on how government can strengthen marriage, and to prepare drafts of community brochures: "The Top Ten Reasons Marriage Matters," stuff like that.

The contract reads: "ACF (Administration for Children and Families, part of HHS) is pursuing research to create knowledge about the dynamics of marriage among low-income populations, and potential strategies states might pursue to strengthen marriage. ACF needs additional expertise to accomplish this work.

"Statement of work: The contractor shall consult with and assist ACF in ongoing work related to strengthening marriage, and provide assistance advice on development of new research activities in this area. The contractor shall perform a variety of activities including (but not limited to) providing information on the programs to strengthen marriage, advising on the dissemination of materials, and participating in meetings and workshops."

The contract did not authorize a general consulting fee. Instead it authorized payment for actual work performed, to be submitted and approved via separate invoice.

By my records, I was paid $21,500 from HHS in 2002.

Is it acceptable for someone who writes a newspaper column to do research and writing for the government?"
http://www.uexpress.com/maggiegallagher/

....just something to consider.
RangerDick is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 10:24 AM   #17 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
No matter which leader does it (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, etc.), bribery is wrong. Bribing the media to tell only one side of a story is wrong. This is wrong. It must stop.

You are right. But, the system will always have a corrupt edge to it.

And come on you just want us who "say that this is nothing new" to eat our words. BUt common sense tells us that these are not new practices.
wnker85 is offline  
Old 01-26-2005, 10:44 AM   #18 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
This isn't something new, as a matter of fact rercorded propoganda predates the printing press by hundreds of years. That doesn't change the fact that it's still wrong.

Aren't there laws against this kind of thing? If not, shoudln't there be? The media person(s) should have to give the money back (and be charged with a crime), and the person(s) responsible for the bribing should be fired (and charged with a crime).
Willravel is offline  
 

Tags
bush, journalist, payoffs, uncovered

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:15 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360