POL - we dont like it when Journalists get involved, kinda?

[Flasch186]

Wasnt this the same group that thought the question in Iraq that the journalist brought up to Rumsfeld, was inappropriate? Isnt this the admin. that only takes questions from the "right" journalists at conferences...


HYPOCRITE!!!!!! This is just such garbage....such hypocrisy. Use them when its good for you and hang em when its not

can someone say, "unethical?" perhaps lowering the standards is necessary for this admin. C'mon, there is no excuse for this.






White House paid commentator to promote law

Fri Jan 7, 6:56 AM ET

By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY

Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.


The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.

Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in."

The top Democrat on the House Education Committee, Rep. George Miller (news, bio, voting record) of California, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." He said he will ask his Republican counterpart to join him in requesting an investigation.

The contract, detailed in documents obtained by USA TODAY through a Freedom of Information Act request, also shows that the Education Department, through the Ketchum public relations firm, arranged with Williams to use contacts with America's Black Forum, a group of black broadcast journalists, "to encourage the producers to periodically address" NCLB. He persuaded radio and TV personality Steve Harvey to invite Paige onto his show twice. Harvey's manager, Rushion McDonald, confirmed the appearances.

Williams said he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.

"I respect Mr. Williams' statement that this is something he believes in," said Bob Steele, a media ethics expert at The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "But I would suggest that his commitment to that belief is best exercised through his excellent professional work rather than through contractual obligations with outsiders who are, quite clearly, trying to influence content."

The contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said he couldn't comment because the White House is not involved in departments' contracts.

Ketchum referred questions to the Education Department, whose spokesman, John Gibbons, said the contract followed standard government procedures. He said there are no plans to continue with "similar outreach."

Williams' contract was part of a $1 million deal with Ketchum that produced "video news releases" designed to look like news reports. The Bush administration used similar releases last year to promote its Medicare prescription drug plan, prompting a scolding from the Government Accountability Office, which called them an illegal use of taxpayers' dollars.

I guess one reprimand isn't enough - PROPOGANDA = not good.


Williams, 45, a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) Justice Clarence Thomas (news - web sites), is one of the top black conservative voices in the nation. He hosts The Right Side on TV and radio, and writes op-ed pieces for newspapers, including USA TODAY, while running a public relations firm, Graham Williams Group.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hate to break it to you Flasch, but this stuff (at least the Medicare type) has been going on for at least ... lemme see here ... 20 years, because the mid 80's was when I was getting "audio/video press releases" regularly from several Washington, DC agencies. They came complete with their own "fake anchorperson", a basically fake name for the "news" reporting service, the whole bit. This is very old hat stuff, which I never saw actually used on television and only rarely used by a handful of radio stations, mostly those who were really desparate for material occasionally.

"Ethically", I don't know if there's really much difference in this & most any other source of "news" -- they all have an agenda, their reporting is colored by that agenda, I'm just not seeing the biggie here. Williams run a p.r. firm for cryin' out loud, did anybody really think he was a saint? Or that he doesn't have an agenda? And while the whole "propoganda is illegal" stuff is a nice little slogan, I've been on both the news side and the advertising side of broadcasting and I'm damned if I see any significant difference at this point between paying Williams for "p.r." and paying for straight commercial ad time (which the government does regularly for a variety of programs to the tune of millions).

[stevew]

oh god.

[Suicane75]

Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in."




He believes in it so much he wanted $1 Million dollars to do it.


Armstrong Williams has always been an idiot.

[Flasch186]

difference = contract

[Dutch]

Hey, this could be fun!

Iraq question by reporter to Rumsfeld = appropriate

Forum it was asked in = inappropriate

[Flasch186]

Journalist under contract to white house = inappropriate = illegal

[Dutch]

Is it unrealistic to believe other journalists are taking money to print bias news stories? Makes you wonder.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Is it unrealistic to believe other journalists are taking money to print bias news stories? Makes you wonder.

when those come out ill ream them too....like you should be up in arms over this.im an equal opportunity reamer

[Dutch]

I'm not so sure enethical journalists will turn themselves in for you to be so bold, Flasch.

[panerd]

Have to side with both of you here. Is is very naive to act like you are shocked by this Flasch, because nobody is. And then on the other hand Dutch I assume you are a Republican and probably has been blasting the Rumsfield troop disagreement as media propoganda created by the left, "the problem with America". How the hell is this not media propoganda created by the right???

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by panerd

Have to side with both of you here. Is is very naive to act like you are shocked by this Flasch, because nobody is. And then on the other hand Dutch I assume you are a Republican and probably has been blasting the Rumsfield troop disagreement as media propoganda created by the left, "the problem with America". How the hell is this not media propoganda created by the right???

maybe thats a problem with me, honestly, I still get shocked when i read/hear this stuff. It seems I get more shocked than most people but, in my view, it doesnt change the ethical or morals or hypocrisy, etc. involved.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by panerd

Have to side with both of you here. Is is very naive to act like you are shocked by this Flasch, because nobody is. And then on the other hand Dutch I assume you are a Republican and probably has been blasting the Rumsfield troop disagreement as media propoganda created by the left, "the problem with America". How the hell is this not media propoganda created by the right???

I think it is propaganda first of all. I don't think it's some amazing "Aha!" moment. It was all done in the public eye. The Education Department did not hide the fact that they paid for advertising. They apparently wanted to teach people about No Child Left Behind. I'm assuming that the way they did it was wrong, and I expect them to do things within the spirit of the law.

As for the Rumsfeld witch-hunt. I don't have a problem with Reporters asking Rumsfeld questions. He's been drilled on CSPAN with tough questions and sensationalize questions all the time, including armor for Humvees. I think it's important for him to answer the questions honestly. My problem was with a reporter getting a soldier to ask the question for him in a forum that Rumsfeld requested be a no-bs discussion with the troops off the record and with no journalists. The goal was not to get a question answered that Rumsfeld refused to answer. The goal was to invoke journalistic sensationalism to damage US credability in Iraq for money and personal gain.

It's all dirty politics in the end. So that much, I agree with.

[Franklinnoble]

This is totally unfair.

After all, journalists routinely promote the left-wing Democratic agenda for free. Why should Republicans have to pay money for it?

[Dutch]

[Flasch186]

again, the scandalous part is that there is a contract which then turns the journalist into a propagandizer which our congress has deemed to be illegal. THEN the second part that gets under my skin is that after admonishing the White House once, they continued to do it, snubbing their nose at the rules....not the first time theyve snubbed their noses at widely known and agreed upon rules and law.

[Dutch]

As was pointed out, I'm sure the journalists who don't get money from the White House will more than make up for it in an avalanche of negative press. I wouldn't be half surprised to see, "MICHAEL MOORE WAS RIGHT!" in 300 pt font across the front page of the New York Times on Sunday.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

again, the scandalous part is that there is a contract which then turns the journalist into a propagandizer which our congress has deemed to be illegal.

But this assumes Williams is a journalist. IMHO, he is not. He's no more than a pundit, a talking head, an op-ed columnist. There was never any expectation of objectivity from Williams. You knew he was a right winger, so how is this a scandal?

If you're going to hold Williams to this standard, I'm sure you shared the same outrage when Begala and Carville joined the Kerry Capaign while still "journalists" on CNN. Correct?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

As was pointed out, I'm sure the journalists who don't get money from the White House will more than make up for it in an avalanche of negative press. I wouldn't be half surprised to see, "MICHAEL MOORE WAS RIGHT!" in 300 pt font across the front page of the New York Times on Sunday.

regardless...its not right. Me and you have morals. We act ethically and I dont think it is much to ask that they do too. Im not a fan of talking about raising the moral benchmark and then having them act lower than it, or try to lower the benchmark in congress. Its wrong to do by either party. When they were admonished they shouldve said, "whoops, it wont happen again..." And it shouldnt have.

[clintl]

If you're being paid to promote something, your listeners have the right to know you're being paid. Period. If they don't know they're listening to a paid advertisement, then you're deceiving them. Now, if the Education Department had hired Armstrong Williams to do TV and radio commercials to promote the passage of NCLB, that would have been entirely different matter. But that's not what happened. They tried to be sneaky about it. Even the White House is distancing itself from the Department of Education on this one.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by clintl

If you're being paid to promote something, your listeners have the right to know you're being paid. Period. If they don't know they're listening to a paid advertisement, then you're deceiving them. Now, if the Education Department had hired Armstrong Williams to do TV and radio commercials to promote the passage of NCLB, that would have been entirely different matter. But that's not what happened. They tried to be sneaky about it. Even the White House is distancing itself from the Department of Education on this one.

Bingo

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

But this assumes Williams is a journalist. IMHO, he is not. He's no more than a pundit, a talking head, an op-ed columnist. There was never any expectation of objectivity from Williams. You knew he was a right winger, so how is this a scandal?

If you're going to hold Williams to this standard, I'm sure you shared the same outrage when Begala and Carville joined the Kerry Capaign while still "journalists" on CNN. Correct?

im not a fan of that either BUT I see a difference in one trying to win election and someone trying to sell a plan he/she is a pushing.

The two are different

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

im not a fan of that either BUT I see a difference in one trying to win election and someone trying to sell a plan he/she is a pushing.

The two are different

You're right, an election is a lot more important.

[Blackadar]

To equate this with gaming...

What would you say if you found out that your favorite PC gaming magazine/site was being paid by the publisher - blatently, but under the table - to publish positive reviews? You'd flip out and probably cancel your subscription immediately.

Remember when the accusation was that Joe Stallings paid He-Who-Should-Not-Be-Mentioned to slam FOF? We lynched him. How is this any different?

Illegal? Maybe. Unethical? Without question.

[Dutch]

Like I said, I personally do not agree with the method of advertising the Education Department chose based upon what I know from the AP. It was about as creative an idea as an infomercial....and I hate infomercials!

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

You're right, an election is a lot more important.

BS, our president should not be paying pundits to sell to any group a piece of administration...that is wrong no matter what side of the aisle youre on.

[Dutch]

And our media should not be receiving payment. An equally important part of our process as a successful free society.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

But this assumes Williams is a journalist. IMHO, he is not. He's no more than a pundit, a talking head, an op-ed columnist. There was never any expectation of objectivity from Williams. You knew he was a right winger, so how is this a scandal?

If you're going to hold Williams to this standard, I'm sure you shared the same outrage when Begala and Carville joined the Kerry Capaign while still "journalists" on CNN. Correct?

What makes that different is that it was done openly, and didn't really conflict with their roles at CNN (which is to represent the Democratic Party viewpoint as pundits). Much like Carville's wife does for the other side for whichever organization she's working for now (I've lost track).

[Tekneek]

The only problem (to me) was that he was not revealing that he was a paid spokesman for the program while talking about it in various forums.

There is a big difference between being financed by the government and a private firm. A private firm is, presumably, not financed by money that is taken from people by force.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

To equate this with gaming...

What would you say if you found out that your favorite PC gaming magazine/site was being paid by the publisher - blatently, but under the table - to publish positive reviews? You'd flip out and probably cancel your subscription immediately.

Remember when the accusation was that Joe Stallings paid He-Who-Should-Not-Be-Mentioned to slam FOF? We lynched him. How is this any different?

Illegal? Maybe. Unethical? Without question.

Both were lynched in that whole drama because you expected both parties involved to act in an ethical manner. If something were to come out today about either gentlemen, would you be surprised? Would you round up the mob and get to lynching? I doubt it, because you have come to expect that behavior from both parties based on past behavior. (I'm using the preverbial you, not you directly Blackadar).

We're talking about politics here. We expect politicians to act unethically - they're politicians.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The only problem is that he was not revealing that he was a paid spokesman for the program while talking about it in various forums.

I mostly agree with that, although I think both Williams and the Department of Education probably collaborated on the plan to conceal (or at least downplay, and hope no one noticed) that bit of information.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

We're talking about politics here. We expect politicians to act unethically - they're politicians.

This gets to a problem I have with a lot of people. An expectation of unethical behavior from people who govern over you should indicate a strong desire to change things. Apparently, most people WANT their government to be unethical because they tend to send the same people (or representatives of the same political parties) into office over and over. I don't understand how people reconcile wanting a lack of ethics in governnment but demand it in other aspects of their life.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by clintl

I mostly agree with that, although I think both Williams and the Department of Education probably collaborated on the plan to conceal (or at least downplay, and hope no one noticed) that bit of information.

No doubt. His statements presumably carry much more weight when they appear to be coming from an impartial/objective person. That's why it is important to know who these people are working for.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I don't understand how people reconcile wanting a lack of ethics in governnment but demand it in other aspects of their life.

I seriously question the amount of that demand in other aspects. And yes, I'm dead serious.

The biggest complaints I've gotten professionally, the maddest I've ever made people at me, the most trouble I've gotten into, etc. etc. all involved cases where I was trying to take the ethical high ground & was unwilling/refused to do something that I felt was "unethical" or at least "shady". And in a couple of cases, out & out criminal.

edit to add: I hit "post", but really felt like I left this thought hanging.

I'm not arguing whether there's a lack of ethics in politics, I just find any claim that there's a significant "demand" for ethical behavior in any other aspect of life either. All I see, and I mean 99.9% of the time kind of "all", are people who don't give a damn whose ox gets gored as long as it isn't theirs. And they'll slaughter as many oxen as they have to to make sure that's the case.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Journalist under contract to white house = inappropriate = illegal

Letme put this a little more sensibly.

Journalist under contract to white house = inappropriate <-------- Well that sure sounds bad, but this guy doesn't seem much like a journalist, more like a talk show host or media personality. Anyone accepting money to be an advocate for a cause, isn't doing so in the name of Journalism. So let's make that statement more correct Media personality under contract to white house to communicate the message of the White House. Now that sounds like business as usual.

X = inappropriate = illegal: The principle of equality should mean something to you, but you are leaps and bounds away from placing an equal sign between things that are equal to each other. Things that are inappropriate are not illegal, and neither is what the Department of Education is doing here.

This doesn't even merit a news release if the Medicare commercial disguised as a fake newscast isn't blown all out of proportion last year. The fact of the matter is that this is an effective way to communicate a message, and the Government has engaged in this in the past, and it will again. You'll feel better when the next Democrat administration uses the same tools. You should bookmark this thread, so you can use it when your counterpart on the right expresses outrage about commercials that look like newscasts.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

im not a fan of that either BUT I see a difference in one trying to win election and someone trying to sell a plan he/she is a pushing.

The two are different

Credibility shedding.

Pull Up man, your starting to spiral in.

Next there will be flames.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Journalist under contract to white house = inappropriate = illegal

Pundit != journalist.

[Flasch186]

Williams' contract was part of a $1 million deal with Ketchum that produced "video news releases" designed to look like news reports. The Bush administration used similar releases last year to promote its Medicare prescription drug plan, prompting a scolding from the Government Accountability Office, which called them an illegal use of taxpayers' dollars.


you must mean the accountability Office's credibility is shot....I dont. If you arent going to take the accoutnabilitys office's scolding credible than what is?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Letme put this a little more sensibly.

Journalist under contract to white house = inappropriate <-------- Well that sure sounds bad, but this guy doesn't seem much like a journalist, more like a talk show host or media personality. Anyone accepting money to be an advocate for a cause, isn't doing so in the name of Journalism. So let's make that statement more correct Media personality under contract to white house to communicate the message of the White House. Now that sounds like business as usual.

X = inappropriate = illegal: The principle of equality should mean something to you, but you are leaps and bounds away from placing an equal sign between things that are equal to each other. Things that are inappropriate are not illegal, and neither is what the Department of Education is doing here.

This doesn't even merit a news release if the Medicare commercial disguised as a fake newscast isn't blown all out of proportion last year. The fact of the matter is that this is an effective way to communicate a message, and the Government has engaged in this in the past, and it will again. You'll feel better when the next Democrat administration uses the same tools. You should bookmark this thread, so you can use it when your counterpart on the right expresses outrage about commercials that look like newscasts.

I want you to say that you are okay with your taxdollars being spent on the Selling of an agenda via a journalist. Im not. Our government shouldnt be using a PAID journalist to sell something to a group....that is propoganda. Would you like to start discussing slippery slopes again?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I want you to say that you are okay with your taxdollars being spent on the Selling of an agenda via a journalist. Im not. Our government shouldnt be using a PAID journalist to sell something to a group....that is propoganda. Would you like to start discussing slippery slopes again?

First...I don't consider him a journalist, in any sense of the word. This guy is a talking head, a talk show host, and/or a media personality...not a journalist. In short the government can pay him to be a talking head for whatever they choose.

Also IF this guy were a journalist, I'd have a lot bigger problem with him accepting money to promote a cause than I do the party that is doing the buying.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

...The Bush administration used similar releases last year to promote its Medicare prescription drug plan, prompting a scolding from the Government Accountability Office, which called them an illegal use of taxpayers' dollars...

Check again. Democrats said it was illegal, not the GAO. The GAO investigated and found this.

Medicare ad Campaign by Bush Legal, GAO says> >

By Mark Sherman, the Associated Press

March 11, 2004> >

The Bush administration's publicly funded Medicare ad campaign on television is legal, though somewhat political, congressional investigators said yesterday.

So I'd say it is your source that has it wrong, unless the GAO reversed itself, but since the AP account matches what I recall, I doubt that is the case.


Much adoo about nothing.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Check again. Democrats said it was illegal, not the GAO. The GAO investigated and found this.



So I'd say it is your source that has it wrong, unless the GAO reversed itself, but since the AP account matches what I recall, I doubt that is the case.


Much adoo about nothing.

so the GAO mustve reversed itself, and I appreciate the extra information. Even still, this does not sit well with me and is unethical IMO and in probably a lot of Americans eyes. IT simply not right to parade around a Pundit or journalist, with a check from the White House in his back pocket, to sell an agenda.

[Tekneek]

I have a problem with this and would have a problem regardless of the administration's political party. I don't decide what is right/wrong based on political affiliation.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I have a problem with this and would have a problem regardless of the administration's political party. I don't decide what is right/wrong based on political affiliation.

me either... I know what youre thinking but no matter who is in the white house, the precedent and the action is WRONG.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

so the GAO mustve reversed itself, and I appreciate the extra information. ...

So are you saying that The GAO must have reversed itself, and found that the production was Illegal?

Or are you saying that the guy who wrote the article couldn't be entirely wrong, and must have at one point ruled the commercial campaign Illegal, and then chaged their ruling later?

Because it seems like those are the only two ways to interpret your post. You are completely leaving out what I believe is the actual course of events. Which is that the author of the article erroneously exagerated the GAO's findings because he was writing his peice with such righteous indignation at the time that actual facts didn't really matter. As long as he could smear the Bush administration a little, it didn't matter what he said.

As for you and Tekneek saying you'd be just as indignant if this were a Dem admin...well wait four or five years and when such commercials are business as usual under that admin, I'm sure you will have found a loophole that legitimizes the whole process.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

me either... I know what youre thinking but no matter who is in the white house, the precedent and the action is WRONG.

I grow increasingly tired of people who expect everyone to have the same relativism they do when it comes to ethics. They feel anything is ok as long as it is someone they support.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for you and Tekneek saying you'd be just as indignant if this were a Dem admin...well wait four or five years and when such commercials are business as usual under that admin, I'm sure you will have found a loophole that legitimizes the whole process.

I'm curious what makes you think I have a blind spot for Democrats? I generally despise Democrats and Republicans equally.

EDIT: And I am sure I have commented here many times that I don't think our government will be brought under control as long as we keep either of those parties in power.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

So are you saying that The GAO must have reversed itself, and found that the production was Illegal?

Or are you saying that the guy who wrote the article couldn't be entirely wrong, and must have at one point ruled the commercial campaign Illegal, and then chaged their ruling later?

Because it seems like those are the only two ways to interpret your post. You are completely leaving out what I believe is the actual course of events. Which is that the author of the article erroneously exagerated the GAO's findings because he was writing his peice with such righteous indignation at the time that actual facts didn't really matter. As long as he could smear the Bush administration a little, it didn't matter what he said.

As for you and Tekneek saying you'd be just as indignant if this were a Dem admin...well wait four or five years and when such commercials are business as usual under that admin, I'm sure you will have found a loophole that legitimizes the whole process.

i have no idea the motivation behind his article other than to assume he wasn't paid to write it by the white house Well, upon hindsight, either or. He either got it wrong, or the GAO reversed itself since March 2004. TO me it doesnt matter...you argument is Like when Rush crucified the reserve that asked the question of Rumsfeld in an effort to lambast him instead of seeing if there was some meat behind the question. With the reactio of the Pentagon and DOD in its immediate change in armor ordering policy, I'd say the meat was there.

No matter if the GAO said it, changed its mind, etc. doesnt matter to me. I can make up my own mind and just Hearing that a pundit/journalist got paid by me to go out and "sell" a plan to the people is abhorrent, dem or rep its wrong to do.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I grow increasingly tired of people who expect everyone to have the same relativism they do when it comes to ethics. They feel anything is ok as long as it is someone they support.

again, no matter the party affiliation, paying the media is wrong

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

when those come out ill ream them too....like you should be up in arms over this.im an equal opportunity reamer

equal opportunity = whenever that opportunity is to rip those who don't share his liberal views.