Bush payoffs to yet another journalist are uncovered - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CShine · 01-26-2005, 04:38 AM

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

raveneye · 01-26-2005, 05:41 AM

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.

braisler · 01-26-2005, 05:43 AM

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.

Superbelt · 01-26-2005, 06:24 AM

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.

dksuddeth · 01-26-2005, 07:49 AM

funny how nobody seemed to complain when the clinton administration did it.

wnker85 · 01-26-2005, 08:15 AM

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.

raveneye · 01-26-2005, 08:44 AM

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.

martinguerre · 01-26-2005, 08:47 AM

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.

roachboy · 01-26-2005, 08:57 AM

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.

dksuddeth · 01-26-2005, 08:59 AM

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.

raveneye · 01-26-2005, 09:12 AM

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.

dksuddeth · 01-26-2005, 09:39 AM

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."

ObieX · 01-26-2005, 09:50 AM

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.

Willravel · 01-26-2005, 09:55 AM

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.

raveneye · 01-26-2005, 10:07 AM

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.

RangerDick · 01-26-2005, 10:24 AM

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.

wnker85 · 01-26-2005, 10:24 AM

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.

Willravel · 01-26-2005, 10:44 AM

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).

01-26-2005, 07:49 AM	#5 (permalink)
dksuddeth 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."

01-26-2005, 08:57 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy 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

01-26-2005, 09:39 AM	#12 (permalink)
dksuddeth 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."

01-26-2005, 09:50 AM	#13 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles 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.

01-26-2005, 05:41 AM	#2 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	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.

01-26-2005, 05:43 AM	#3 (permalink)
braisler Addict 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.

01-26-2005, 06:24 AM	#4 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. 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.

01-26-2005, 09:55 AM	#14 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

01-26-2005, 10:44 AM	#18 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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).