POL - Stop Already

[Flasch186]

Looks like this was last year though so perhaps they have now.



Agriculture Dept. paid journalist for favorable stories

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY Wed May 11, 6:28 AM ET

A third federal agency has admitted it paid a journalist to write favorable stories about its work.
ADVERTISEMENT
click here

Documents released by the Agriculture Department show it paid a freelance writer $9,375 in 2003 to "research and write articles for hunting and fishing magazines describing the benefits of NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) programs."

Three articles by the writer, Dave Smith, appeared late last year in two magazines aimed at hunting and fishing enthusiasts: Outdoor Oklahoma, published by that state's Department of Wildlife Conservation, and Washington-Oregon Game & Fish, published by Primedia.

Neither identified Smith as having been paid by the government. The stories focused on how money from a 2002 agricultural subsidy bill had been used to help preserve wetlands that hunting and fishing enthusiasts enjoy in Oklahoma and the Northwest.

Smith, a biologist by profession who now works for the NRCS in Montana, said Tuesday that the magazines knew he'd been paid by the Agriculture Department. "I clearly spelled out to them," in writing, "that I'd been hired to do this," he said. He said the magazines did not pay him for the articles. "I knew I couldn't be paid by them" since he'd already been compensated, Smith said.

Smith said he did not mention in the stories that he had been paid by NRCS. "I'd already explained to the magazines what the deal was and I thought they would take care of it from there," he said.

Ken Dunwoody, editor of Primedia's 31 Game & Fish magazines, said Tuesday he did not know what Smith told the company, but if other editors knew Smith had been paid by the government, it was a mistake not to have told readers. "We may have failed to do things as we should have," Dunwoody said. He added that "there was no political agenda" in not identifying the Agriculture Department's role in the story, he said.

The contract came to light in response to Freedom of Information Act requests from USA TODAY and other media. The department posted the contract on its Web site (www.usda.gov). The admission follows revelations this year that:

• The Education Department paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to help promote its No Child Left Behind program in 2003 and 2004.

• The
Health and Human Services Department paid two columnists more than $40,000 to write brochures and train some of its staff - payments the columnists did not disclose to their readers.

Those disclosures led some Democrats, including Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record) of New Jersey and Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record) of California, to accuse the Bush administration of paying for propaganda, which would be illegal.
President Bush has ordered Cabinet secretaries to end such payments to journalists and not enter into similar contracts.

David Gagner, chief of staff at the conservation service, said Tuesday that his agency has hired freelance writers because it gets "lots of requests from publications for help in writing stories."

He said in the wake of the disclosures about Williams and other commentators having been paid by the government, his agency wants stories written on its behalf to be clearly identified as having been paid for by the federal government.

[Easy Mac]

I thought this was going to be a thread about making people stop putting the damn POL in front of a thread. That alone makes me not want to read it. I have no problem glancing at a political thread by chance, but just seeing it makes me no there's no chance for a reasonable, logical discussion.

POL seems to just be a shorter way of saying: I'm going to post an article that completely articulates my point of view and I'll vehemently defend it even if I have no argument. Take out the preface and I think you'll get a more subdued response, and people will be more willing to jump in and defend you.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I thought this was going to be a thread about making people stop putting the damn POL in front of a thread. That alone makes me not want to read it. I have no problem glancing at a political thread by chance, but just seeing it makes me no there's no chance for a reasonable, logical discussion.

POL seems to just be a shorter way of saying: I'm going to post an article that completely articulates my point of view and I'll vehemently defend it even if I have no argument. Take out the preface and I think you'll get a more subdued response, and people will be more willing to jump in and defend you.

Yep. "POL" = "I have a narrow vision of the world."

[Cuckoo]

Hmm... I actually appreciate it when people use "POL" - lets me know which topics to avoid or which ones I should expect people making ridiculous claims that everyone else is ignorant but them.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Hmm... I actually appreciate it when people use "POL" - lets me know which topics to avoid or which ones I should expect people making ridiculous claims that everyone else is ignorant but them.

I think its respectful to you all, in that you dont have to peek in here if you want to stay out of it.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think its respectful to you all, in that you dont have to peek in here if you want to stay out of it.

Well, just to clarify my statement: I wasn't talking about you Flasch. I don't think you've been one of those kinds of people that do that stuff in a long time. I often don't agree with you but I respect your opinion and the way you articulate it most of the time.

And as I said I agree with you that using "POL" is a good way to differentiate on the argumentative topics.

[Dutch]

I agree that "POL" is a nice indicator that it's a thread for heated debate. Like I always say, I don't ever get to hear the views of the left because I don't have any liberal friends that I would ever talk politics with (else we probably would end up arguing all the time).

So I am fascinated by the way left and right wing people view the world and every instance of debate in it.

For example, this article above. The left is generally going to be angry at the government agency's lack of integrity. The right (like me) will tend to be angry at the journalist's lack of integrity.

Personally, one is a well known problem (government agencies are not perfectly sound and without corruption) while the other one is generally hidden (journalists are not perfectly sound and without corruption and it's not like you will get to many editorials talking about it as I suspect it would be the last editorial any one journalist would write!).

Yet both play an equally important role in making a democracy work properly and both should be working in the people's best interest, not themselves.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Personally, one is a well known problem (government agencies are not perfectly sound and without corruption) while the other one is generally hidden (journalists are not perfectly sound and without corruption and it's not like you will get to many editorials talking about it as I suspect it would be the last editorial any one journalist would write!).

Yet both play an equally important role in making a democracy work properly and both should be working in the people's best interest, not themselves.

A decent point except I'll go further and say that government corruption is a famous STEREOTYPE. People assume, without much provocation, that politicians/government agencies are corrupt or slimey. People find it hard to believe that noble journalists would ever be motivated by anything other than pure beautiful Truth.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

People find it hard to believe that noble journalists would ever be motivated by anything other than pure beautiful Truth.

Not really true anymore. Consider the reactions of those on the right to the words "New York Times", and those on the left to the words "FOX News".

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Not really true anymore. Consider the reactions of those on the right to the words "New York Times", and those on the left to the words "FOX News".

Fair enough.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

For example, this article above. The left is generally going to be angry at the government agency's lack of integrity. The right (like me) will tend to be angry at the journalist's lack of integrity.

It's amazing how the right wing has been transformed in recent years. Wasn't there a time when thought government wasn't the answer, and distrusted government abuse of power? Now they're more afraid of Geraldo than the NSA..

Yes, indeed, it's shocking, SHOCKING that the press lacks integrity. Every time I watch Crossfire and O'Reilly, I think to myself, 'These are such honest, thoughtful , wise, and sincere people, I wish they were running my country. They couldn't possibly be motivated by anything but a heartfelt mission of public service.'

Whereas a democratic government that wages a secret propaganda campaign against the public.. bah, been there done that. And sadly, it's true.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

It's amazing how the right wing has been transformed in recent years. Wasn't there a time when thought government wasn't the answer, and distrusted government abuse of power? Now they're more afraid of Geraldo than the NSA..

Yes, indeed, it's shocking, SHOCKING that the press lacks integrity. Every time I watch Crossfire and O'Reilly, I think to myself, 'These are such honest, thoughtful , wise, and sincere people, I wish they were running my country. They couldn't possibly be motivated by anything but a heartfelt mission of public service.'

Whereas a democratic government that wages a secret propaganda campaign against the public.. bah, been there done that. And sadly, it's true.

No, no, no, you are confusing priorities. The first priority for ALL Americans is for the government and media to earn our trust. The next priority after that is small government.