Author Topic: How I learned To Quit Worrying and Love The Propaganda (Read 3344 times)

Raider179 · « **Reply #180 on:** January 30, 2005, 11:38:47 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus
What about before he got paid? Was he a proponent of the idea prior to his contract?

Perhaps, in his research that he performed in the execution of his contract he found that he believed in the concept? Should his first amendment right to free speech be stifled?

Just a couple of "if's", but that's all you had too.

Who knows all I know is the quote where he said he didnt endorse it until after he got paid.

Free speech is different from freedom of the press. And neither gaurantee you the right to lie/decieve.

1)he lied about his contract with the government to his employer
2)he decieved his readers/viewers about his connection with the story
3)it is illegal to not disclose those connections in the radio/television format

4) I hear youon the he could have uncovered some things that gave him this point of view. That is where journalistic integrity and conflict of interest come in. I do think If in his ad/article he would have said something like "In the process of researching this information for which I was paid by the government I discovered that I agree with their take on it...blah blah blah" Then I would not have an issue with him or gallagher. They both hid it. That to me means they knew what they were doing was improper at least. Illegal that remains to be seen.

Raider179 · « **Reply #181 on:** January 30, 2005, 11:40:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
So they shouldn't advertise on their programs?

Advertising is one thing. Touting the party line on an issue and calling it an ad is another. Key word here being issue. They were not trying to sell anything other than agendas. Not Products

Martlet · « **Reply #182 on:** January 30, 2005, 11:50:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Advertising is one thing. Touting the party line on an issue and calling it an ad is another. Key word here being issue. They were not trying to sell anything other than agendas. Not Products

So they shouldn't accept advertising from the American Red Cross? Heart and Lung association? Salvation Army?

Raider179 · « **Reply #183 on:** January 30, 2005, 12:00:07 PM »

are those federal agencies?
Is he gonna write articles on them spouting their agenda's?
Is he gonna disclose payments by these companies?

I dont have a problem with the ads. Its the reporter/journalist that turns their show/column into an infomercial for whatever they are supporting without that disclaimer.

Martlet · « **Reply #184 on:** January 30, 2005, 12:02:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
are those federal agencies?
Is he gonna write articles on them spouting their agenda's?
Is he gonna disclose payments by these companies?

I dont have a problem with the ads. Its the reporter/journalist that turns their show/column into an infomercial for whatever they are supporting without that disclaimer.

So we're back to the disclaimer again. That's where we were last time and I agreed. Then you disagreed, and said:

Quote

No I also think journalists should not be accepting payment from anything they are for/against.

Which brings me back to my statement several pages ago. You can't have it both ways. It seems as though I'm correct and you agree, but you just refuse to admit it. Make up your mind.

rpm · « **Reply #185 on:** January 30, 2005, 12:07:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
It seems as though I'm correct and you agree, but you just refuse to admit it.

Martlet, you must be related to my Dad's second wife. She can never admit she's wrong about anything either. She always has to have the last word, too.

Martlet · « **Reply #186 on:** January 30, 2005, 12:08:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
Martlet, you must be related to my Dad's second wife. She can never admit she's wrong about anything either.

Are you back again? You didn't add anything, you must have picked up Tweety's pom poms.

Good job. I may send you a bill for your education after all.

Come back when you have something to add.

rpm · « **Reply #187 on:** January 30, 2005, 12:23:32 PM »

What's to add? Nothing to be gained in kicking a man after I've already proven my point.

Lazerus · « **Reply #188 on:** January 30, 2005, 12:26:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Who knows all I know is the quote where he said he didnt endorse it until after he got paid.

[/B]

The quote you posted said that he "subsequently" endorsed the idea. It made no specific claim that he did or didn't endorse it before he accepted that contract.

Quote

Free speech is different from freedom of the press. And neither gaurantee you the right to lie/decieve.

[/B]

They are one in the same. Slander, libel, defamation of character. Freedon of the press is the embodiment of free speech.

Quote

1)he lied about his contract with the government to his employer

[/B]

Did he lie, or fail to disclose? Nitpicking I know, but still. Omission and giving false information are very different things. Neither of which are excusable.

Quote

2)he decieved his readers/viewers about his connection with the story
3)it is illegal to not disclose those connections in the radio/television format

[/B]

That he did, if he promoted the idea in his column after he was paid to compose a piece supporting it, and he did not believe in the idea when he supported it in his column. Editorialism allows you to express opinions. If he supported those intellectually then monetary compensation for some other publication really doesn't matter. If he was supporting those ideas in his column because of compensation, then he has an obligation to inform his readers that his writings are advertisements, not editorials.

Martlet · « **Reply #189 on:** January 30, 2005, 12:34:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
What's to add? Nothing to be gained in kicking a man after I've already proven my point.

I guess if you're point was that I'm right, you've certainly proven it.

I don't blame you for bailing out now. Stick around with those pom poms, though. Raider needs the support.

Raider179 · « **Reply #190 on:** January 30, 2005, 01:05:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
So we're back to the disclaimer again. That's where we were last time and I agreed. Then you disagreed, and said:

Which brings me back to my statement several pages ago. You can't have it both ways. It seems as though I'm correct and you agree, but you just refuse to admit it. Make up your mind.

Maybe you need to restate exactly what you mean instead of saying all this stuff about pages ago. You have said so much I have no idea what you are talking about.

I think you have an individual confused with an institution.

Advertising in the USATODAY (the paper) is ok. Advertising in an article is not. Those are called paid advertisement and are labeled as such.

Martlet · « **Reply #191 on:** January 30, 2005, 01:10:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Maybe you need to restate exactly what you mean instead of saying all this stuff about pages ago. You have said so much I have no idea what you are talking about.

I think you have an individual confused with an institution.

Advertising in the USATODAY (the paper) is ok. Advertising in an article is not. Those are called paid advertisement and are labeled as such.

I think it is you who are confused. The Department of Education bought advertising on his television and radio show. It was completely seperate from his article.

Perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the case you are arguing?

Raider179 · « **Reply #192 on:** January 30, 2005, 01:13:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus

The quote you posted said that he "subsequently" endorsed the idea. It made no specific claim that he did or didn't endorse it before he accepted that contract.

They are one in the same. Slander, libel, defamation of character. Freedon of the press is the embodiment of free speech.

Did he lie, or fail to disclose? Nitpicking I know, but still. Omission and giving false information are very different things. Neither of which are excusable.

[/B]

1) exactly but he did say "subsequently" and he did not say anywhere I can find that he did support it beforehand. To me that would be the first thing said to show he didnt do this but I cant find him saying it. It SEEMS his viewpoint was bought.

2)Ok they very close to the same but, explain to me how then Novak released the CIA operatives name awhile back without facing any trouble. You or I do that and we are in violation of federal law. Journalists are not in that situation. It is after all a federal crime to reveal a CIA operatives Identity.

3)Ok so he didnt tell the whole truth but to me that is a liar.Might not be by the strictest definition of the word but I think most parents would agree that makes for a dishonest person.

Raider179 · « **Reply #193 on:** January 30, 2005, 01:18:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
I think it is you who are confused. The Department of Education bought advertising on his television and radio show. It was completely seperate from his article.

Perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the case you are arguing?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2003, I agreed to run a paid ad on my syndicated television show, promoting the Department of Education’s No Child Left Behind Act. I subsequently used my column space to support that legislation. This represents an obvious conflict of interests. People have used this conflict of interests to portray my column as being paid for by the Bush Administration. Nothing could be further from the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is your quote from a few pages back. Notice he says I subsequently used my column space to support that legislation. I dont care about the ads if they were run during the commercials or whatever. That is when I expect to see ads. I do not however expect to see them in the middle of columns, news shows, etc.

Martlet · « **Reply #194 on:** January 30, 2005, 01:21:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2003, I agreed to run a paid ad on my syndicated television show, promoting the Department of Education’s No Child Left Behind Act. I subsequently used my column space to support that legislation. This represents an obvious conflict of interests. People have used this conflict of interests to portray my column as being paid for by the Bush Administration. Nothing could be further from the truth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is your quote from a few pages back. Notice he says I subsequently used my column space to support that legislation. I dont care about the ads if they were run during the commercials or whatever. That is when I expect to see ads. I do not however expect to see them in the middle of columns, news shows, etc.

The second wasn't an ad, nor was it paid. It was his writing on his views in his article. He then says how he sees people would be confused, as you obviously are, and he should have disclosed it.