Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on January 26, 2005, 01:43:41 PM
-
More Bush propaganda payola uncovered: Linky (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38267-2005Jan26.html)
Writer Backing Bush Plan Had Gotten Federal Contract
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
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," Gallagher 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."
Gallagher received an additional $20,000 from the Bush administration in 2002 and 2003 for writing a report, titled "Can Government Strengthen Marriage?", for a private organization called the National Fatherhood Initiative. That report, published last year, was funded by a Justice Department grant, said NFI spokesman Vincent DiCaro. Gallagher said she was "aware vaguely" that her work was federally funded.
President Bush, asked about the practice at a news conference this morning, acknowledged that his administration had made a mistake by awarding contracts to commentators who support his policies.
While she was being paid by HHS in 2002, Gallagher in her syndicated column dismissed the arguments against "President Bush's modest marriage initiative" as "nonsense," writing: "Bush plans to use a tiny fraction of surplus welfare dollars to fund marriage education services for at-risk couples."
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-da
Function: noun
: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Main Entry: pay·o·la
Pronunciation: pA-'O-la
Function: noun
: undercover or indirect payment for a commercial favor
-
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."
must be rough.
-
really sucks the way reporters have been acting since 9/11. maybe they were doing this kind of crap before but it seems to have become more pronounced.
For me I quit watching Fox news when I would turn it on at the top of the hour to see what was going on in Iraq and it was all about Scott Peterson. Then Gretta asked "Why are we all so fascinated by the Scott Peterson case?" Click...
O'rielly still makes me laugh and I will watch Geraldo now that he is on the ground in Baghdad but I wish Fox would get a clue on what is NEWS and what is pointless crap. I see why more people I know lay claim to watching the news. Fox is just a damn soap opera.
I know Fox isnt the only one but they are easiest to give examples of.
-
Don't forget, the end justifies the means and the Democrats are worse.. there that should cover it :)
shamus
-
i miss uncle walt.
.
-
I love the sound of Liberals whineing in the morning......it sounds like........Victory
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Don't forget, the end justifies the means and the Democrats are worse.. there that should cover it :)
shamus
So it's OK to break federal law as long as you are a Republican?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
really sucks the way reporters have been acting since 9/11. maybe they were doing this kind of crap before but it seems to have become more pronounced.
For me I quit watching Fox news when I would turn it on at the top of the hour to see what was going on in Iraq and it was all about Scott Peterson. Then Gretta asked "Why are we all so fascinated by the Scott Peterson case?" Click...
O'rielly still makes me laugh and I will watch Geraldo now that he is on the ground in Baghdad but I wish Fox would get a clue on what is NEWS and what is pointless crap. I see why more people I know lay claim to watching the news. Fox is just a damn soap opera.
I know Fox isnt the only one but they are easiest to give examples of.
Fox is the channel of my choice over there. It's simply the best in entertainment and O'Reilly really kicks ass! I also love the disapproving looks and comments I get from some people when I watch it.
You just need to remember what it is, entertainment. Not really better or worse than the other networks.
-
I love the sound of Liberals whineing in the morning......it sounds like........Victory
funny, i dont remember feeling that way when i had to listen to 8 years of (false) conservative nutjobs spouting out thier rhetoric for a lynching.
but then, you rightwingers always spout sh@t when you get busted don't you. hate to say this, but you get 4 more years of it. and its only getting started.
you always seem to think that getting caught being jack's is cool.
its not.
you should be ashamed of yourselves for having to cheat in the first place.
its a damned tragedy to see the mockery that is your vernal cesspool of a NEO- ideology sprung from such good republicans as your fathers.
its why i left. the republican party sounded too much like a nursery without enough pacifiers. now its just reverse crying. now theyre just spoiled brats.
- augosaurus rex. sitting in for 88 while he quits smoking.
-
well said 88 ....
-
Propaganda in the USA ?? cAN NoT B€ :eek:
-
Originally posted by rpm
So it's OK to break federal law as long as you are a Republican?
Son!!! (in my best leghorn voice) am I getting through to you son????...it's Sarcasm!!!!
shamus
-
Originally posted by Manedew
well said 88 ....
thanks manedew
:cool:
-
Originally posted by rpm
So it's OK to break federal law as long as you are a Republican?
Just curious, what federal law or any other do you see being broken?
-
i think she lied under oath to a grand jury.............no wait , that was somebody else.
-
yah, reagan...oh wait that was somebody else...he just didnt recall violating the constitution.
and it wasnt a grand jury...it was congress...oops.
was it nixon? no...he just erased it....gosh who was it....hmmmmm.
-
Who is Maggie Gallagher and why do you care what she says?
-
Thanks for bringing this to light RPM.....How dare she spread propaganda about family and children....discusting what some republicans would go to to increase the quality of life for some folks. I mean who is he to sudjest to anyone that they should wait to have children until they are married and financially able to support a family. I mean what if they don't want to enjoy their youth and jump right into the stresses and pitfalls of child birthing. That's just wrong......people should WANT to screw up their life and the govt shouldnt encourage them to do otherwise.
PS what law was broken here? Last I read the the ethics committee or DOJ or something said this was all legit????
-
Wasn't someone just saying in another thread that it didn't matter the circumstances of the reporting as long as the message was legitimate?
funny how that no longer applies.
-
(http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:HwyYtoSCBv8J:[url]www.intothewoods.us/HikerMama/chicken.jpg[/url])
-
As for the exact federal laws, I can not quote them to you. But in the Williams case, it was said repeatedly that paying journalists to promote government programs violated several federal laws. It has happened many times in many administrations and is rarely prosecuted.
My point is this has become commonplace for this administration to pay for propaganda to promote it's agenda. You could tell Bush was clearly angry that he was caught doing this when questioned during todays press conference. He did his damage control dance, calling for agencies to stop this practice. I did not notice him saying he would fire those responsable. So in fact he condoned their actions.
If the administration wants to publicise their programs, they should do so openly, as Reagan did with "Just Say No". Doing it thru subterfuge is, to put it bluntly...cowardly.
-
bingo.
-
Not to mention the use of public airways under the pretense of being "Journalists" when you are really a puppet.
At least air them late at night like infomercials because thats what they are.
-
Originally posted by JB88
I love the sound of Liberals whineing in the morning......it sounds like........Victory
funny, i dont remember feeling that way when i had to listen to 8 years of (false) conservative nutjobs spouting out thier rhetoric for a lynching.
That makes no sense at all...1 on the whine-o-meter
but then, you rightwingers always spout sh@t when you get busted don't you. hate to say this, but you get 4 more years of it. and its only getting started.
best I can give you is a 2 on that one
you always seem to think that getting caught being jack's is cool.
its not.
I don't know what being Jack's is? Maybe you can enlighten me
you should be ashamed of yourselves for having to cheat in the first place.
Cheat on what?
its a damned tragedy to see the mockery that is your vernal cesspool of a NEO- ideology sprung from such good republicans as your fathers.
My Father is a Democrat. A Union Teamster. You know "The Mafia"
its why i left. the republican party sounded too much like a nursery without enough pacifiers. now its just reverse crying. now theyre just spoiled brats.
You where a republican like I was an Imam......
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Not to mention the use of public airways under the pretense of being "Journalists" when you are really a puppet.
At least air them late at night like infomercials because thats what they are.
That's what I find disgusting. It isn't the fault of the Administration. That's politics. It's todays journalism that needs an enema.
-
Weasle, learn to format.
-
And now the real story........
NEW YORK Maggie Gallagher released a statement this afternoon taking issue with aspects of the Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz that today broke the news that she received $21,500 from the Department of Health and Human Services for marriage-themed writing projects. She called one of the Kurtz passages "completely false."
Kurtz, after being contacted by E&P, read a rebuttal statement over the phone, in which he said she was attempting to "blame the messenger."
Here are Gallagher's comments, followed by Kurtz':
"On January 26, 2005, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote that I 'had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the President's proposal.'
"To me, this is an extremely serious charge. It is also completely false. I was not paid to promote the President's marriage proposal. In 2001 I was approached by HHS to do research and writing, not on the President's $300 million marriage initiative, but on marriage: specifically four brochures on the social-science evidence on the benefits of marriage for populations serviced by HHS (such as unwed parents), a draft of an essay for Wade Horn, and a training presentation on the social-science evidence on the benefits of marriage for regional HHS managers.
"I've been a marriage expert, researcher, and advocate for nearly 20 years. I've written two books on marriage, numerous articles in scholarly journals, as well as many newspaper columns and magazine articles. My research and expertise is why HHS hired me, and why I accepted the work assignment. I have written a syndicated column for almost 10 years, but my main work has been research and public education on marriage as a social institution.
"I did not and would not accept any payment to promote anyone else's policies of any kind in my newspaper column or anywhere else. Moreover on Jan. 25, I offered Howard Kurtz copies of my contract and invoice as documentation of my work product. He had also received a copy of my Jan. 25 column, explaining the exact nature of the work I performed, before he filed his story.
"It is not uncommon for researchers, scholars, or experts to get paid by the government to do work relating to their field of expertise. Nor is it considered unethical or shady: if anything, government funded work is considered a mark of an expert's respectability. Until today, researchers and scholars have not generally been expected to disclose a government-funded research project in the past, when they later wrote about their field of expertise in the popular press or in scholarly journals.
"For these reasons, it simply never occurred to me there was a need to disclose this information. I certainly had no intention or motive to hide my work from anyone. As a journalist, however, when the question is raised 'Should you have disclosed?' the answer is always, yes. It was a mistake on my part not to have disclosed any government contract. It will not happen again."
In response, Kurtz told E&P: "It's too bad that Maggie Gallagher, in the process of apologizing for her mistake, has seen fit to blame the messenger. My story made quite clear that her work at HHS included writing brochures for the President's marriage initiative, ghostwriting a magazine article for a top official, and briefing other department officials on the issue. That sure sounds like promotion to me, but none of this would be a media controversy had Ms. Gallagher disclosed the contract in her writing trumpeting the Bush marriage plan."
In Other words every thing she did is completely legal....but I'm gonna whine about it any way.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Weasle, learn to format.
I'm a multi-millionare, I don't have to learn squat.
-
I'm a multi-millionare, I don't have to learn squat.
ahhhh....
george? is that you? what are you doing here when you are supposed to be running an inquisition?
-
Originally posted by JB88
I'm a multi-millionare, I don't have to learn squat.
ahhhh....
george? is that you? what are you doing here when you are supposed to be running an inquisition?
I won't have time PMS wants me to learn how to format.
-
"That sure sounds like promotion to me, but none of this would be a media controversy had Ms. Gallagher disclosed the contract in her writing trumpeting the Bush marriage plan."
Game, Set, Match
-
golf clap.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
"And now the real story........
NEW YORK Maggie Gallagher released a statement this afternoon..."
The "real story" comes from the publishing giant known as the State of New York?
Wha?
-
Nash, he's a multimillionare. You don't have to understand his jibberish.
-
real story is she had a contract
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/bush.paidpundits.reut/index.html
-
wow....the dept or HHS paid her to write a brochure and to give bfeifings on her work to the effects of marraige as a social institution.......
WOW those fascist conservatives.....what will they think of next! Dispicable I tell you......Dispicable! RPM did you check this bandwagon befor hopping on? You know what happend the last two times ;) ;)
-
whats even funnier is this
Bush said, "We didn't know about this in the White House"
Already getting his denials ready
-
Originally posted by Raider179
whats even funnier is this
Bush said, "We didn't know about this in the White House"
Already getting his denials ready
DO you know how much information he gets every day????? this is a health department Hiring a wrieter to write a brochure......He's supposed to know all the details?
-
i smell a rove.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
DO you know how much information he gets every day?????
Probably a lot. My question is how much he retains.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
DO you know how much information he gets every day????? this is a health department Hiring a wrieter to write a brochure......He's supposed to know all the details?
Probably not too much. He goes to bed around 8 and that is if he is even Washington.
He is president he needs to be on the ball. Sorry he was a "C" student. Maybe if he would have layed off the coke and booze and studied more he wouldn't be such a moron.
Let me be a little simpler...
When The government starts hiring Journalists to tell us things we are in trouble. Called Journalistic Integrity.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I'm a multi-millionare, I don't have to learn squat.
Golf clap
shamus
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I'm a multi-millionare, I don't have to learn squat.
That's one of those wake-up-in-the-morning-D'oh!-I-SAID-THAT?? posts.
Not exactly rare in these parts, except that this one has got a strobe light strapped to its head.
-
:rofl
sig material.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
When The government starts hiring Journalists to tell us things we are in trouble. Called Journalistic Integrity.
A commentator who happens to be an expert in the field whos done alot of research on the subject????
again I fail to find fault in this!
It's not like they are paying her to write columns in news papers and pass them off as her personal opinion....they contracted her to conduct research, write a brochure, and breif health dept officials. Were's the propaganda? Looks like this bandwagan needs to circle up and regroup.
-
Guns, what would you be saying if Democrats gave Michael Moore a chunk of your tax money to do a pro-abortion movie? Get my point?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Guns, what would you be saying if Democrats gave Michael Moore a chunk of your tax money to do a pro-abortion movie? Get my point?
Is Michael Moore an expert in the field of abortion? What would the purpose of the movie be? How would it be used?
They hired her for her professional expertise for a project unrelated to journalism.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Guns, what would you be saying if Democrats gave Michael Moore a chunk of your tax money to do a pro-abortion movie? Get my point?
ya know what i like about the second term dontcha rpm?
its alllll gonna come out.
like a seive.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
A commentator who happens to be an expert in the field whos done alot of research on the subject????
again I fail to find fault in this!
It's not like they are paying her to write columns in news papers and pass them off as her personal opinion....they contracted her to conduct research, write a brochure, and breif health dept officials. Were's the propaganda? Looks like this bandwagan needs to circle up and regroup.
Once you begin accepting payments from the government you no longer are unbiased. As you say she briefed health officials with no longer her own opinion but the governments. They werent paying her to write her views they paid her to spout theirs. (the governments) Why did she need to get paid $22,000 for 3 little things. That is a waste of taxpayer money and even bush
understands you cant hire journalists or commentators to deliver briefings if for no other reason it just looks bad. Her career is forever tarnished and rightly so.
P.S. yeah she did pass it off as her personal opinion
"In retrospect, Gallagher said, she should have disclosed the contract to her readers when she later wrote in support of the Bush marriage initiative in her column."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/paid.pundits/index.html
Consider the bandwagon back on the trail
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Once you begin accepting payments from the government you no longer are unbiased. As you say she briefed health officials with no longer her own opinion but the governments. They werent paying her to write her views they paid her to spout theirs. (the governments) Why did she need to get paid $22,000 for 3 little things. That is a waste of taxpayer money and even bush
understands you cant hire journalists or commentators to deliver briefings if for no other reason it just looks bad. Her career is forever tarnished and rightly so.
P.S. yeah she did pass it off as her personal opinion
"In retrospect, Gallagher said, she should have disclosed the contract to her readers when she later wrote in support of the Bush marriage initiative in her column."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/paid.pundits/index.html
Consider the bandwagon back on the trail
It was her opinion. The Government hired her for you expertise. You can spin it however you'd like, but that's exactly what it is.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It was her opinion. The Government hired her for you expertise. You can spin it however you'd like, but that's exactly what it is.
The government hired her to spout their point of view. If it was her point of view then why hire her. She surely would have said and done all these things anyway right?
She also admitted it was wrong that is no spin.
Bush admitted it was wrong that is no spin.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
The government hired her to spout their point of view. If it was her point of view then why hire her. She surely would have said and done all these things anyway right?
Either you just blatantly don't know what you are talking about, or you are confusing the charge with what actually happened. She was consulting and writing publications FOR THE GOV'T for a fee.
Are you asking if she would have worked for free? How is that relevant?
-
Journalistic Integrity something she no longer has. Hopes she enjoys that 22k. she is gonna need a new career now.
Confliction of Interests. Journalist and paid government writer are not two jobs that A reporter/commentator can posess.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Journalistic Integrity something she no longer has. Hopes she enjoys that 22k. she is gonna need a new career now.
Confliction of Interests. Journalist and paid government writer are not two jobs that A reporter/commentator can posess.
Why not? Can a journalist be hired to write someone's memoirs?
-
now he's justifying it.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Why not? Can a journalist be hired to write someone's memoirs?
Sure.
You do of course know the difference between the United States Government and an individual right?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Sure.
You do of course know the difference between the United States Government and an individual right?
So, if a journalist is hired for a private individual, he doesn't automatically become biased, but if he is hired by the government, he does? What about a corporation? Would a journalist suddenly become biased if hired by a corporation?
-
if yer president says its wrong boy...it wrong. not get with program before you get stripped of your party pin.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Would a journalist suddenly become biased if hired by a corporation?
They already are.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So, if a journalist is hired for a private individual, he doesn't automatically become biased, but if he is hired by the government, he does? What about a corporation? Would a journalist suddenly become biased if hired by a corporation?
You cant be serious.
Better look behind ya, when ya backpeddle like that you might hit a pothole.
Please dont compare the federal government to individuals or corporartions. Those are private entities and the Government is not.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
You cant be serious.
Better look behind ya, when ya backpeddle like that you might hit a pothole.
Please dont compare the federal government to individuals or corporartions. Those are private entities and the Government is not.
Explain how they are different in relation to your argument.
-
Spin it however you like Martlet. She was a lackey.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Explain how they are different in relation to your argument.
If you dont know the difference between the private sector and the federal government I dont know what to tell you.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
If you dont know the difference between the private sector and the federal government I dont know what to tell you.
Explain how they are different as they relate to your argument.
-
You should read my posts on confliction of interest and journalistic integrity.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
You should read my posts on confliction of interest and journalistic integrity.
Are you going to continue dodging the question, or answer it? If you can't, that's fine. We'll just end the discussion with my point made.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Are you going to continue dodging the question, or answer it? If you can't, that's fine. We'll just end the discussion with my point made.
now, why does that sound familiar?
gee....hmmmmmm...... hypocrit much?
-
Originally posted by JB88
now, why does that sound familiar?
gee....hmmmmmm...... hypocrit much?
Do you understand the definition of "hypocrite", or do you just not know how to use it or spell it?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Are you going to continue dodging the question, or answer it? If you can't, that's fine. We'll just end the discussion with my point made.
Responsiblity to the American People. Something the private sector does not have.
Like I said earlier you are attempting to compare 2 different things.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Responsiblity to the American People. Something the private sector does not have.
Like I said earlier you are attempting to compare 2 different things.
Ahhhh, I understand now. You're trying to shift the focus of the discussion to change the meaning of my question.
Nice try.
We were discussing her journalistic responsibilities and bias, not the Administration's. If you're having trouble following, go back and read it again.
Now that we've established that, how about responding to my question.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhhh, I understand now. You're trying to shift the focus of the discussion to change the meaning of my question.
Nice try.
We were discussing her journalistic responsibilities and bias, not the Administration's. If you're having trouble following, go back and read it again.
Now that we've established that, how about responding to my question.
Martlette you are full of it.
Heres the passage of your "question"
"If you dont know the difference between the private sector and the federal government I dont know what to tell you. " -Raider179
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Explain how they are different as they relate to your argument. "-Martlett
Maybe you have trouble making what you are asking known. So I say to you ASK A DIRECT QUESTION
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Martlette you are full of it.
Heres the passage of your "question"
"If you dont know the difference between the private sector and the federal government I dont know what to tell you. " -Raider179
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Explain how they are different as they relate to your argument. "-Martlett
Maybe you have trouble making what you are asking known. So I say to you ASK A DIRECT QUESTION
I did. I'm sorry you have trouble following the logical advancement of a discussion. Why don't you go to this repy by me:
It was her opinion. The Government hired her for you expertise. You can spin it however you'd like, but that's exactly what it is.
and start reading. When you get back here, answer the question.
-
"Please dont compare the federal government to individuals or corporartions. Those are private entities and the Government is not. "
That was my answer and it still stands
-
Originally posted by Raider179
"Please dont compare the federal government to individuals or corporartions. Those are private entities and the Government is not. "
That was my answer and it still stands
And my response was:
Explain how they are different in relation to your argument.
and it still stands.
-
we are going round and round
"Responsiblity to the American People. Something the private sector does not have."
I answered that 5 posts up.
-
Martlet, your question was can a journalist be hired to write someone memoirs and be considered unbiased. The answer is it depends. Memoirs implies a one time deal, hired by an individual. The nature of the job implies no future relationship. People don't write memoirs once a year.
Now working for a corporation or government with chances of future lucrative job offers, the answer is obviously not. In that case the question of whether or not the journalist is being objective or protecting chances of future job offers (by the government or a corporation) becomes real.
So in the contex of your argument, the what is more important than the who. A memoir implies a one shot deal. The others can be an ongoing relationship. Nice try though.
-
Originally posted by JB88
ya know what i like about the second term dontcha rpm?
its alllll gonna come out.
like a seive.
The only thing that's going to come out is what a handsomehunk you are....stop, before it's too late....wait....you can just change your callsign....again.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
we are going round and round
"Responsiblity to the American People. Something the private sector does not have."
I answered that 5 posts up.
You're going round and round. You could answer the question to put an end to it.
So a journalist isn't fulfilling their "responsibility to the American people" if they fulfill a contract with the gov't, but they are if they fulfill one with a corporation?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
Martlet, your question was can a journalist be hired to write someone memoirs and be considered unbiased. The answer is it depends. Memoirs implies a one time deal, hired by an individual. The nature of the job implies no future relationship. People don't write memoirs once a year.
Now working for a corporation or government with chances of future lucrative job offers, the answer is obviously not. In that case the question of whether or not the journalist is being objective or protecting chances of future job offers (by the government or a corporation) becomes real.
So in the contex of your argument, the what is more important than the who. A memoir implies a one shot deal. The others can be an ongoing relationship. Nice try though.
It's not important at all. If fact, it's the exact same thing in most cases.
Nice try though.
-
And some how people think there is a difference in the federal Government and the private sector.....when did this take place?
Same rules/laws apply to both and nowadays more than ever if the federal gov funds programs in your state. The Private sector still resides within a federal state......
-
Its not important that a jounalist is courting job offers from an entity he is supposed to be writing about objectively?
Funny, it seems important, in fact it seems like a conflict of interest.
-
I would say you have a solid conflict of intrest......The pres ended it in short notice......and stated "there has, No there must be seperation". or thats what I heard him say.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So a journalist isn't fulfilling their "responsibility to the American people" if they fulfill a contract with the gov't,
Bingo
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Bingo
Who says a journalist has a responsibility to the American people?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Who says a journalist has a responsibility to the American people?
ask one, make sure he's american though
-
Originally posted by Raider179
ask one, make sure he's american though
I'm asking you.
-
your like the kid that never quits asking why.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
your like the kid that never quits asking why.
You're like a moonbat who spews anything he reads at moveon and denies everything he doesn't like without understanding it or being able to articulate it.
-
I never read move on, and if you dont think journalists have a responsibility to the people they report to be honest, unbiased, accurate, and balanced you arent talking about reporters.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
I never read move on, and if you dont think journalists have a responsibility to the people they report to be honest, unbiased, accurate, and balanced you arent talking about reporters.
I certainly am. Journalism is a business. Selling their medium pays the bills. You only have a few options:
You either say they have no responsibility, which allows them to do whatever they want to sell their product.
You establish that they don't have opinions about anything, and can therefore report without personal bias.
You can assert that they are completely capable of plying their trade without influence of the personal opinions they have.
If you think of a fourth option, let me know.
If the first is true, your argument is moot. It doesn't matter.
If the second is true, your argument is moot, it doesn't matter.
If the third is true, you have to establish that she included her personal bias in her journalism. You have yet to do that.
-
"AP's mission is to be the essential global news network, providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed. AP operates as a not-for-profit cooperative with 3,700 employees working in more than 240 worldwide bureaus."
1)I am not talking about fox news.
2) She admitted she was wrong. That is enough proof for me.
3) see what the AP says about reporting news. not for profit, objectivity
-
Lets put this into perspective folks..
Yellow journalism has been around since the Spanish American War. W.R. Hearst was either in bed with the politicians of his time, or owned them.
Sure it's sleazy for the govt. to pay someone to maintain or even to write about a certain topic, but it is hardly new.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
"
2) She admitted she was wrong. That is enough proof for me.
Wrong about what? All I saw her admit to being wrong about was forgetting to disclose her prior work, because she didn't think it mattered. RE: Didn't know the moonbats were going to cry about it.
That's proof enough for you? That she's sorry for not realizing the liberals would whine about nothing?
-
Actually Martlet is arguing like a woman. Continuing to ask the same question over and over even tho he was given an answer. He has no counterpoint to give in rebuttal (i.e. a broken record).
-
Originally posted by rpm
Actually Martlet is arguing like a woman. Continuing to ask the same question over and over even tho he was given an answer. He has no counterpoint to give in rebuttal (i.e. a broken record).
I keep asking the same question over and over in hopes he'll answer it instead of continue his dancing.
Did you have something to add, or is that crying just the result of a wet diaper?
-
Just pointing out the obvious. You don't like an answer, you keep asking the same question instead of offering a rebuttal.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Just pointing out the obvious. You don't like an answer, you keep asking the same question instead of offering a rebuttal.
Ahhh, so you just have a wet diaper.
Carry on, then.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Wrong about what? All I saw her admit to being wrong about was forgetting to disclose her prior work, because she didn't think it mattered. RE: Didn't know the moonbats were going to cry about it.
That's proof enough for you? That she's sorry for not realizing the liberals would whine about nothing?
She said she forgot not that she didnt think it mattered
"I would have [disclosed the contract], if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers," Gallagher said.
just fyi if you does this on tv or radio it is against the law good thing she is in print.
U.S. law requires that radio or television stations, as well as individuals, disclose on air when they have received compensation to talk about a product or issue.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/26/bush.paidpundits.reut/index.html
and yeah I get tired of the run around with you martlet. get a clue I will no longer keep reposting answers to vague questions.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ahhh, so you just have a wet diaper.
Carry on, then.
Childish rebuttal, but it's what we've come to expect.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Childish rebuttal, but it's what we've come to expect.
No one's changed you yet?
-
One question...
If Fox is such a mouthpiece for Bush policy and only spews forth approved propaganda, why did the administration feel compelled to hire spokesmen?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
One question...
If Fox is such a mouthpiece for Bush policy and only spews forth approved propaganda, why did the administration feel compelled to hire spokesmen?
I dont think they spout only approved propaganda. Nor do I think they are under the paid employ of the Republican party. As I said earlier that would be a violation of federal law.
They are just a group of die hard republicans claiming to be a fair and balanced news channel. This is clearly not the case. The only democrat on there is colmes and he is like some scary monster who also acts like a wuss. I do think O'rielly seems to be middle of the road but the rest are all Rush wanna be's.
for the why seems to me that Journalists have reputations of being more unbiased than an administration official. Therefore people on the other side of the fence might listen to her where if its some appointed official they would just say yeah your promoting your own stuff no wonder you think its so great.
-
His position that that a journalist can have a business relationship with the government or a corporation that he is writing about and appear objective, in untenable so he's resorted to goofy.
I think that was pretty clear when it got to the point "I'm not gonna tell you my question, go look for it."
-
lol
-
Journalism is a business. Selling their medium pays the bills. You only have a few options:
You either say they have no responsibility, which allows them to do whatever they want to sell their product.
You establish that they don't have opinions about anything, and can therefore report without personal bias.
You can assert that they are completely capable of plying their trade without influence of the personal opinions they have.
If you think of a fourth option, let me know.
If the first is true, your argument is moot. It doesn't matter.
If the second is true, your argument is moot, it doesn't matter.
If the third is true, you have to establish that she included her personal bias in her journalism. You have yet to do that.
-
The 4th option is they be a journalist and form an educated unbiased account and not contrive legitimacy. Again, your position is untenable. You can't be a little bit journalist no more than you can be a little bit pregnant, or a little bit faithful, or a little bit truthful, or a little bit dead. You are or you are something else. If everything was so black and white as this, life would be simple.
A journalist gives an unbiased, educated account and has no need to contrive legitimacy. When the wheels start turning to prove there is no bias or that the account is competent, there's a problem. Its hard to be more concise than that.
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
The 4th option is they be a journalist and form an educated unbiased account and not contrive legitimacy. Again, your position is untenable. You can't be a little bit journalist no more than you can be a little bit pregnant, or a little bit faithful, or a little bit truthful, or a little bit dead. You are or you are something else. If everything was so black and white as this, life would be simple.
A journalist gives an unbiased, educated account and has no need to contrive legitimacy. When the wheels start turning to prove there is no bias or that the account is competent, there's a problem. Its hard to be more concise than that.
That doesn't even make sense. If it is educated and unbiased, then the legitimacy isn't contrived. Either way, it falls into one of the three scenarios I posted.
-
>> If it is educated and unbiased, then the legitimacy isn't contrived.<<
Er yea, and if the the reporter is comming out with a column to CONTRIVE legitmacy, its NEITHER educated or UNBIASED.
Guess we factored that polynomial - now tell me why it doesn't make sense?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>> If it is educated and unbiased, then the legitimacy isn't contrived.<<
Er yea, and if the the reporter is comming out with a column to CONTRIVE legitmacy, its NEITHER educated or UNBIASED.
Guess we factored that polynomial - now tell me why it doesn't make sense?
However no column was published to contrive legitimacy, so again, the point is moot.
-
Keep on spinning Martlet, they've found yet another one.
WASHINGTON — The Department of Health and Human Services yesterday said that a third conservative columnist was paid to promote a Bush administration policy.
Mike McManus, whose column appears in about 50 newspapers, received $10,000 to train marriage counselors as part of the agency's initiative promoting marriage, said Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families.
The disclosure, first reported by USA Today, came as the Government Accountability Office sent a letter to the Education Department yesterday asking for all materials related to its contract dealings with Armstrong Williams, a prominent media commentator who produced ads that promoted President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. The contract also committed Williams, who is black, to provide media access for former Education Secretary Rod Paige and to persuade other black journalists to talk about the law.
Federal law bans the use of public money on propaganda.
McManus was hired by the Lewin Group, which had an HHS contract to support community-based programs. He has written supportively about the HHS marriage initiative in many columns since the consulting work began in January 2003. He declined comment.
Bush this week ordered Cabinet secretaries not to hire columnists to promote administration agendas. The declaration was prompted by reports that Williams and columnist Maggie Gallagher had been paid by the administration, the latter to create materials promoting the marriage initiative.
All three columnists failed to disclose to their readers their relationships with the administration.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Keep on spinning Martlet, they've found yet another one.
Spinning? The only spinning here is being done by the liberal media.
Keep crying, though. It's entertaining.
-
So you are denying they were caught with another journalist on the payroll? If this was all above board and proper, why didn't they just come right out and say they were doing it in the first place? Why did Bush admit during his press conference it was wrong? You're right, you're not spinning....you're on a Tilt-O-Whirl.
REPORTER: Mr. President, do you think it's a proper use of government funds to pay commentators to promote your policies?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: No.
Are you calling the President a liar?
-
Originally posted by rpm
So you are denying they were caught with another journalist on the payroll? If this was all above board and proper, why didn't they just come right out and say they were doing it in the first place? Why did Bush admit during his press conference it was wrong? You're right, you're not spinning....you're on a Tilt-O-Whirl.
REPORTER: Mr. President, do you think it's a proper use of government funds to pay commentators to promote your policies?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: No.
Are you calling the President a liar?
No, I'm calling you a spinner. He's paying journalists to work on promotions due to their expertise. He isn't payrolling journalists to use their medium to promote his agenda. There is a huge difference.
The fault lies with the journalists lack of disclosure, not with the Administration.
-
Originally posted by rpm
REPORTER: Mr. President, do you think it's a proper use of government funds to pay commentators to promote your policies?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: No.
Originally posted by Martlet
He's paying journalists to work on promotions due to their expertise. He isn't payrolling journalists to use their medium to promote his agenda.
President George W. Bush
"I expect my cabinet secretaries to make sure that that practice doesn't go forward. There needs to be independence. All our cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying ... commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."
Seems the President does not agree with you. Spin again.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Seems the President does not agree with you. Spin again.
Post the link. You have him contradicting himself.
Lets see it.
-
Text of Bush's News Conference (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-text-part-2,0,3440467.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines)
Will a transcript be good enough for you?
-
You can start reading at question 10 if you are having trouble.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Text of Bush's News Conference (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-text-part-2,0,3440467.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines)
Will a transcript be good enough for you?
Perfect. It exactaly supports what I claimed.
You are confusing seperate issues.
They purchased advertising. Williams then apologized saying he shouldn't have accepted advertising for a position he often supports in his columns. While I disagree, it has nothing to do with the Administration.
However, if the Adminsistration wants to discontinue it's advertising on journalist programs, that's a smart public relations move. It certainly doesn't indicate wrong doing or fault of the Administration. Regardless how badly you wish it to be so or attempt to spin it.
-
Originally posted by rpm
You can start reading at question 10 if you are having trouble.
It's not I having trouble. You suffer from a retarded reading comprehension, apparently.
-
(http://www.crownamusements.com/tilt-a-whirl.gif)
[SIZE=10]Pwn3d[/SIZE]
-
Q: Mr. President, do you think it's a proper use of government funds to pay commentators to promote your policies?
BUSH: No.
Q: Are you going to order that ...
BUSH: Therefore I will not pay you to.
Q: Fair enough.
Are you ordering that there be an end...
BUSH: I expect my -- yes, I am. I expect my Cabinet secretaries to make sure that that practice doesn't go forward. There needs to be independence.
And Mr. Armstrong Williams admitted he made a mistake.
And we didn't know about this in the White House. And, you know, there needs to be a nice, independent relationship between the White House and the press and the administration and the press. And so, no, we shouldn't be going forward.
Q: Mr. Williams made a mistake.
BUSH: Who?
Q: Mr. Williams made a mistake. Did the Department of Education make a mistake?
BUSH: Yes, they did.
Q: And what will happen to the people that made this decision?
BUSH: And we've got new leadership going to the Department of Education.
But all our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying, you know, commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet.
Give it up Martlet. Thou hast been owned.(http://gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/06042004/owned_jc.jpg)
-
Owned?
Everything you posted completely proves the point I made.
You're following the classic liberal argument philosophy:
If you have facts on your side, argue the facts.
If you have truth on your side, argue the truth.
If you have neither facts nor truth on your side, bang the table and cry loudly.
Keep crying.
-
Seems I have both the truth and the facts on my side. You see the text don't you? Bush himself says it's wrong. He says nothing about buying advertising, he says they hired commentators to advance his policies. That's not advertising, that's good old fashioned propaganda. Do you need a link to Webster's?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Seems I have both the truth and the facts on my side. You see the text don't you? Bush himself says it's wrong. He says nothing about buying advertising, he says they hired commentators to advance his policies. That's not advertising, that's good old fashioned propaganda. Do you need a link to Webster's?
You need a link to the story he's talking about? It's about advertising on William's program.
Keep spinning.
-
From Tribune Media Services (Williams' FORMER Employer)
"Tribune Media Services (TMS) today informed Armstrong Williams that it is terminating its business relationship with him effective immediately. After several conversations with Mr. Williams today in which he acknowledged receipt of $240,000 from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), TMS exercised its option to discontinue distribution of his weekly newspaper column.
"The fact that Mr. Williams failed to notify TMS of his receipt (through the Ketchum public relations agency) of payments from the DOE is a violation of provisions in his syndication agreement with TMS. The agreement requires him to notify TMS when 'a possible or potential conflict of interest arises due to the subject matter of (his columns) and the social, professional, financial, or business relations of (Mr. Williams).'
"We accept Mr. Williams' explanation that these payments by Ketchum on behalf of DOE were for advertising messages broadcast on his radio and TV shows. Nevertheless, accepting compensation in any form from an entity that serves as a subject of his weekly newspaper columns creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Under these circumstances, readers may well ask themselves if the views expressed in his columns are his own, or whether they have been purchased by a third party."
Advertising is when you run a commercial. You know, those 30 and 60 second spots in the middle of a program that clearly are not part of the program. I'm sure you've seen them.
Propaganda is the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. When you pretend it is part of the program. This, was propaganda.
Keep riding that Tilt-A-Whirl. Be careful, you stay on it too long and you'll puke.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Advertising is when you run a commercial. You know, those 30 and 60 second spots in the middle of a program that clearly are not part of the program. I'm sure you've seen them.
Propaganda is the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. When you pretend it is part of the program. This, was propaganda.
Keep riding that Tilt-A-Whirl. Be careful, you stay on it too long and you'll puke.
Ahhh, you finally realized what advertising is. Then you know realize I'm right.
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.
Keep spinning, though. It's fun to watch. You must get sick of being schooled, though.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I subsequently used my column space to support that legislation.
That one line is the coffin nail. Right there he admits it was propaganda.
-
Originally posted by rpm
That one line is the coffin nail. Right there he admits it was propaganda.
Um, no, that's where he admits that taking paid advertising for a political position he agrees with and writes about in his column was wrong.
Reading Comprehension 101. Sign up for the class. It will save you future embarrassment.
-
You must need to take that course...
...accepting compensation in any form from an entity that serves as a subject of his weekly newspaper columns creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Under these circumstances, readers may well ask themselves if the views expressed in his columns are his own, or whether they have been purchased by a third party."
Now while you chew on that, I have some errands to run. Be glad to pick this up when I get back.
-
Originally posted by rpm
You must need to take that course...
Now while you chew on that, I have some errands to run. Be glad to pick this up when I get back.
Chew on that? An opinion piece? Nahhh.
Has the schooling I've given you made you that desperate?
-
An opinion piece? That was the statement his employers (Tribune Media Services) gave when they FIRED him for conflict of interest. You can't be an objective journalist when you are on the payroll of the subject of your journalism. That is called payola, which in turn makes it propaganda. That is Journalism 101. Look it up, then give it up. Face it, you have lost this debate. End of subject.
-
Originally posted by rpm
An opinion piece? That was the statement his employers (Tribune Media Services) gave when they FIRED him for conflict of interest. You can't be an objective journalist when you are on the payroll of the subject of your journalism. That is called payola, which in turn makes it propaganda. That is Journalism 101. Look it up, then give it up. Face it, you have lost this debate. End of subject.
If you're going to quote something, link it. The last time I finally got you to link what you were quoting it turns out you weren't spinning, and the document proved my point.
Let's go for two.
-
When did the government engage in advertising? They dont because its called propaghanda.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
When did the government engage in advertising? They dont because its called propaghanda.
ad·ver·tis·ing n.
The activity of attracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announcements in the print, broadcast, or electronic media.
(http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/guide/pp0594.jpg)
Government Advertising. This just draws attention to the need for recruits.
prop·a·gan·da n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
(http://www.hist.umn.edu/~sargent/1308/ww1%20hun%20baby%20killer.jpeg)
Government Propaganda, this paints the Kaiser as a baby killer.
-
sorry but that is all propaghanda. And not all propaghanda is bad.
"Propaganda shares many techniques with advertising. In fact, advertising can be thought of as propaganda that promotes a commercial product; however, propaganda usually has political or nationalist themes. Propaganda can take the form of leaflets, posters, TV, and radio broadcasts and can also extend to any other medium."
-
Originally posted by Raider179
sorry but that is all propaghanda. And not all propaghanda is bad.
Yes.
Webster is a retard.
Raider is right.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
So you don't see the difference between saying "Join the Army" and "The enemy is evil, he must be killed."
It is clear to me that the first tells of the need for recruits saying nothing about the percieved enemy of the state, (actually working well in peacetime too) while the second shows the state's enemy as monsters which need to be killed.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So you don't see the difference between saying "Join the Army" and "The enemy is evil, he must be killed."
It is clear to me that the first tells of the need for recruits saying nothing about the percieved enemy of the state, (actually working well in peacetime too) while the second shows the state's enemy as monsters which need to be killed.
Yes there is a difference but they are also very much alike. Both are used to spur Patriotism and Nationalism. Hence propaghanda.
They are not trying to sell a product or business unless you believe the military is one of those. Which I do not but can see why some would think it.
-
Wanted:
Research assistant in stress analysis laboratory.
Must be able to type 80 wpm, know MSExcel and MSWord, and be able to work long hours alone with lonley nerd. Big tits a must.
I want you for the US Army
Both are help wanted advertisements.
-
This is like watching a runstang auger into a mountain rather than be shot down. Give it up Martlet, game, set, match. Or eat the mountain...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Both are help wanted advertisements.
Holden I see your point but one is private sector and one is federal government. That to me makes the difference. Now a text ad like that I might give as being an ad over being propaghanda because it does not try to promote anything other than the army. But that is a part of the government so it should still be considered a lower form of propaghanda. But I see your point and well said I might add.
What is your take on gallagher?
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
This is like watching a runstang auger into a mountain rather than be shot down. Give it up Martlet, game, set, match. Or eat the mountain...
Hey! The peanut gallery is back.
I love moonbats. You destroy their argument, then they stick around to cheer on whoever picks up the ball.
Nice pom poms, tweety.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
What is your take on gallagher?
(http://muzbiz2000.com/img32.gif)
He's funny, but seen it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
If you're going to quote something, link it. The last time I finally got you to link what you were quoting it turns out you weren't spinning, and the document proved my point.
Let's go for two.
(http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/williams_armstrong_cp_69457.jpg)
Linky just for Martlet (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000749251)
The full text of the TMS statement:
"Tribune Media Services (TMS) today informed Armstrong Williams that it is terminating its business relationship with him effective immediately. After several conversations with Mr. Williams today in which he acknowledged receipt of $240,000 from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), TMS exercised its option to discontinue distribution of his weekly newspaper column.
"The fact that Mr. Williams failed to notify TMS of his receipt (through the Ketchum public relations agency) of payments from the DOE is a violation of provisions in his syndication agreement with TMS. The agreement requires him to notify TMS when 'a possible or potential conflict of interest arises due to the subject matter of (his columns) and the social, professional, financial, or business relations of (Mr. Williams).'
"We accept Mr. Williams' explanation that these payments by Ketchum on behalf of DOE were for advertising messages broadcast on his radio and TV shows. Nevertheless, accepting compensation in any form from an entity that serves as a subject of his weekly newspaper columns creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Under these circumstances, readers may well ask themselves if the views expressed in his columns are his own, or whether they have been purchased by a third party."
From Webster's:
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Main Entry: pay·o·la
Pronunciation: pA-'O-l&
Function: noun
Etymology: 1pay + -ola (as in Pianola, trademark for a player piano)
1 : undercover or indirect payment for a commercial favor
Both of these were posted earlier, face it Martlet... You have been owned, in the proper sense. Learn to deal with it and get off the Tilt-A-Whirl. Even President Bush has admitted it publicly. Stop embarrassing yourself. You are just proving to be the minion that we already knew you were.
(http://gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/06042004/owned_jc.jpg)
-
"The fact that Mr. Williams failed to notify TMS of his receipt (through the Ketchum public relations agency) of payments from the DOE is a violation of provisions in his syndication agreement with TMS. The agreement requires him to notify TMS when 'a possible or potential conflict of interest arises due to the subject matter of (his columns) and the social, professional, financial, or business relations of (Mr. Williams)."
Oh Snap. LoL It was even in his contract to not do this kind of behavior. RPM hats off
-
(http://www.augustbach.com/you.jpg)
-
Correct me if I'm wrong here. A government agency hired a private citizen to compose written material to explain their position on an issue so that it could be published and distributed to the general public.
This private citizen has extensive experience on the subject of the governmental agency's position.
This private citizen is employed by a journalistic institution.
No compensation was given to the private citizen by the government agency to compensate them for promoting any government program in their writings published by said journalistic institution.
Sounds like freelancing to me.
The question I have is: Is it illegal for a governmental agency to hire a private sector contractor to promote a proposed bill, program, idea or ideology.
-
1/27/2005
Third Columnist paid by Bush Administration
According to a report on Salon.com , another columnist has been paid to promote Bush administration initiatives. Salon claims that the Department of Health and Human Services paid conservative columnist Mark McManus $10,000 to back the Bush marriage agenda. The full registration-restricted article can be found here.
One day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, and one day after the second high-profile conservative pundit was found to be on the federal payroll, a third embarrassing hire has emerged. Salon has confirmed that Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, “Ethics & Religion,” appears in 50
newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.
Responding to the latest revelation, Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at HHS, announced Thursday that HHS would institute a new policy that forbids the agency from hiring any outside expert or consultant who has any working affiliation with the media. “I needed to draw this bright line,” Horn tells Salon. “The policy is being implemented and we’re moving forward.”
-
was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative
[/B]
What does "foster" mean in this article. What was he specifically hired to do.
McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.
[/B]
First of all, he is an editorialist, not a newscaster.
Second of all, was he fostering the idea, or working to get it passed into law, ie. helping it succeed.
I think if you remove party affiliation from the discussion and concentrate on what is being reported, how it is being reported, and what actually happened the subject would become much clearer .
Links to the quoted (and slanted) articles would also help.
JB88, I hate to tell you this, but you are not a Libertarian. You are a liberal.
Balance your posts with attacks on other parties and present information even handedly and I'll gladly agree with you. A little lip service to your party affiliation doesn't go very far. The theme of your posts carries much more weight.
Just my opinion, not that it matters.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Nash, he's a multimillionare. You don't have to understand his jibberish.
ok, that was funny *golf clap*
-
Originally posted by rpm
(http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/williams_armstrong_cp_69457.jpg)
Linky just for Martlet (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000749251)
From Webster's:
Both of these were posted earlier, face it Martlet... You have been owned, in the proper sense. Learn to deal with it and get off the Tilt-A-Whirl. Even President Bush has admitted it publicly. Stop embarrassing yourself. You are just proving to be the minion that we already knew you were.
(http://gilbertv.com/coppermine/albums/06042004/owned_jc.jpg)
Again, once you post the full link, you've proven my point.
Journalists responsibility to his employer, not a paid mouth piece.
Keep spinning.
What was the third rule of arguing again?
Oh yeah. STOMP YOUR FEET AND CRY LOUDLY.
Keep crying. Changing the direction of your argument from Bush=Bad to Journalist=Bad Mistake shows it to be a loser
Nice try, though. Your fellow moonbats would be proud of the amount of spin you put forth.
I won't charge you for this schooling. It's on me.
-
well, the term "liberal" as i see it isnt any more of a swear word as "conservative" might be.
i am both.
so. ok. whatever.
i have claimed to be an independent, but i voted libertarian this last round and have stated that i am probably going to be more actively involved with them next election cycle.
the libertarians are and have been totally opposed to the war in iraq. read thier platform.
as far as the other. i just posted the article that i came across here because i assumed that this was the relevant theater. posting a topic is not the same as forming an opinion on it.
for the most part, i have posted few opinions with regards to anything other than iraq.
my opposition to that war can be found in several places here.
please dont tell me that you are confusing a lack of blind obedience to a party as "liberalism"
because that my dear friend would not only be misinformed, but wrong.
look it up. i may well be a "classic liberal" as well as i may be a "fiscal conservative" but i see niether as a slant and frankly, i am pretty over those who use it as such.
my major opposition to the republican party comes in the form of a reaction to the teatotalers and the party line cowtowers that spew that line all over these pages irregardless of what the consequences to my liberty might be.
cant say as i even know who the democrats here are.
i can say that kerry is giving a pretty shaky interview with russert this morning...though its getting better once they stopped talking about the election.
believe me. if he would have won, and the democrats would have acted anywhere near as beligerantly as some of the republicans here, i would be grinding that stone just as hard.
in some cases, its just downright embarassing.
but look, i am not one for labels or name calling.
so, when you decide to refrain from sucj things and/or making generalizations without presenting a full attack that spells it out, i may just be the first to agree with you where applicable.
it really dont take much. just a little critical thinking.
88
-
martlette.
its unethical.
and its gross.
period.
-
Originally posted by JB88
martlette.
its unethical.
and its gross.
period.
Now THAT'S a riot. A liberal lecturing me about ethics!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
>>I love moonbats. You destroy their argument, then they stick around to cheer on whoever picks up the ball.
Nice pom poms, tweety.<<
Yea, thats exactly what you did. You showed how a journalist who's primary responsibility is to the truth can appear unbiased while being payed by those he/she writes about. I'm just not intelligent enough to absorb your wisdom, Martlet. Such is life in the peanut gallery. ...
(cue the theme to the twilight zone)
-
Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>I love moonbats. You destroy their argument, then they stick around to cheer on whoever picks up the ball.
Nice pom poms, tweety.<<
Yea, thats exactly what you did. You showed how a journalist who's primary responsibility is to the truth can appear unbiased while being payed by those he/she writes about. I'm just not intelligent enough to absorb your wisdom, Martlet. Such is life in the peanut gallery. ...
(cue the theme to the twilight zone)
Uh huh. Advertising is the DEVIL.
GOOOO TEAM. Nice pom poms, tweety.
-
my nephew is five. hes good at name calling to.
he thinks it makes him smart.
hes got a long way to go. good kid otherwise.
-
Originally posted by JB88
my nephew is five. hes good at name calling to.
he thinks it makes him smart.
hes got a long way to go. good kid otherwise.
So it runs in the family?
-
i dont know. are we related?
-
Originally posted by JB88
i dont know. are we related?
Well, if he is your nephew I'd suggest you are. Then again, it wouldn't suprise me if you weren't.
-
you funny guy.
bright as a funeral this one.
-
Originally posted by JB88
you funny guy.
bright as a funeral this one.
Speaking of insulting 5 year olds...
Pot, meet kettle....
-
i am the soup.
-
Originally posted by JB88
i am the soup.
:aok
-
:aok
-
Originally posted by JB88
so, when you decide to refrain from suchfixed that for ya ;-p things and/or making generalizations without presenting a full attack that spells it out, i may just be the first to agree with you where applicable.
it really dont take much. just a little critical thinking.
88
There was no 'attack' intended. I recognized that your claim of 'independent' was inaccurate based on your overall presentation of your views, and the media that you post here. There is nothing for me to present, you have done that for me.
Granted, you have expressed views that are in the middle of the political spectrum, but you consistantly express and support the political left's presentation of events. Many of which are obviously biased, such as the article I questioned earlier.
Just a little critical thinking would allow you to see the 'editorialism' in the article you posted. With no link I might add.
Don't mean I hate ya or anything, just don't agree that your stated political affiliation is the correct one.
As far as Libertarians and the Iraq war. The party is against it. One of the people most responsible for promoting their ideals and increasing their ranks is adamantly for the Iraq war. There has been a rift through the party because of this.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Correct me if I'm wrong here. A government agency hired a private citizen to compose written material to explain their position on an issue so that it could be published and distributed to the general public.
This private citizen has extensive experience on the subject of the governmental agency's position.
This private citizen is employed by a journalistic institution.
No compensation was given to the private citizen by the government agency to compensate them for promoting any government program in their writings published by said journalistic institution.
Sounds like freelancing to me.
The question I have is: Is it illegal for a governmental agency to hire a private sector contractor to promote a proposed bill, program, idea or ideology.
But back to the subject.
-
well. the democrats had zell.
you call that a rift?
ok.
as far as my "continuous" support of the left. how? because i agree with afghanistan and dont agree with iraq?
naw. thats just my gut talking.
that the left feels similar on that count is just that.
i think that the libertarians are going to have to moderate as well before they are going to be even remotely effective btw.
again, my presentation of media is a response to the issues at hand and the way that they are being presented.
where is the voice of moderation from the right?
i have yet to see one of the "conservatives" put one of thier own in check when they start name calling and adjusting for problems in thier ideologies by clinging ever harder to the root of denial.
i really does need to happen for there to be any progressive discussion. IMHO.
its easy to spout rhetoric, but i have yet to see anyone step down from a pedestal or publically change thier mind on an issue.
the left is equally as guilty, though usually on the defensive.
i have disagreed with both.
-
Originally posted by JB88
well. the democrats had zell.
you call that a rift?
ok.
Eh??
Not sure what you were aiming for with that one.
-
so if all journalists adopted this policy what would we have? There is a reason they arent allowed to accept money from the government without disclosing it. Because regardless of whether it is an agenda they believe in or not they become tools of the government.
Failure to disclose such payments to the public which you report to border on criminal. As i posted in an earlier post to do this in radio or television is illegal. That is why Williams is being investigated.
Williams "subsequently" promoted the agenda in his work. That means after he got paid. He should have never touched the subject after he got the money. Then there would have been no conflict of interest and his integrity would have been intact. There is no problem with freelancing excpet when you hide it and then expouse those views as your own.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
so if all journalists adopted this policy what would we have? There is a reason they arent allowed to accept money from the government without disclosing it. Because regardless of whether it is an agenda they believe in or not they become tools of the government.
Failure to disclose such payments to the public which you report to border on criminal. As i posted in an earlier post to do this in radio or television is illegal. That is why Williams is being investigated.
Williams "subsequently" promoted the agenda in his work. That means after he got paid. He should have never touched the subject after he got the money. Then there would have been no conflict of interest and his integrity would have been intact. There is no problem with freelancing excpet when you hide it and then expouse those views as your own.
Why can they accept money from corporations without disclosing it?
-
Originally posted by JB88
as far as my "continuous" support of the left. how? because i agree with afghanistan and dont agree with iraq?
naw. thats just my gut talking.
that the left feels similar on that count is just that.
[/B]
Well 88, it's the presentation that I see, that's all I can go by. The lack of presentation also. Lack of opposition to actions by the coincidental party that you agree with.
Again, I go back to your posting of an accusatory and slanted article in this thread. Simply because it's here and easy to reference.
again, my presentation of media is a response to the issues at hand and the way that they are being presented.
[/B]
Your presentation of anything is nothing but yours. What you present or post is a reflection of you. On a topic such as this at least.
where is the voice of moderation from the right?
[/B]
There is no moderation from the right or left, that's why they are right or left. The voice of moderation comes from the people that seperate themselves from any party and look at the issues and the facts objectively.
the left is equally as guilty, though usually on the defensive.
[/B]
I disagree. The socialist left is just as aggressive as the restrictive right. More so actually. The modern democratic party is the embodiment of socialism. They are very aggressive in everything they do. The ultra-conservatives are actually a minority in their own republican party and cannot afford to push their agenda for fear of alienating moderates. This is beginning to change I think, but the scale is nowhere near that of the democratic party.
Yet.
[/B][/QUOTE]
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Why can they accept money from corporations without disclosing it?
"There is no problem with freelancing excpet when you hide it and then expouse those views as your own."-raider179
I dont agree that they can, it is not illegal unless you violate your contract. . But I believe that most of their contracts are like the one posted above where they must disclose all financial payments from outside sources.
"The agreement requires him to notify TMS when 'a possible or potential conflict of interest arises due to the subject matter of (his columns) and the social, professional, financial, or business relations of (Mr. Williams)."
Notice it doesnt say government only. It cover everything he would get paid for.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Williams "subsequently" promoted the agenda in his work. That means after he got paid.
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.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
"There is no problem with freelancing excpet when you hide it and then expouse those views as your own."-raider179
I dont agree that they can, it is not illegal unless you violate your contract. . But I believe that most of their contracts are like the one posted above where they must disclose all financial payments from outside sources.
"The agreement requires him to notify TMS when 'a possible or potential conflict of interest arises due to the subject matter of (his columns) and the social, professional, financial, or business relations of (Mr. Williams)."
Notice it doesnt say government only. It cover everything he would get paid for.
So your only complaint is it wasn't disclosed?
Great. i agree. Game over.
-
lazerus, ill have to get back to you on this, gotta run, but i think that we have more common ground than either of us are presenting here. lets continue this conversation though shall we?
88
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So your only complaint is it wasn't disclosed?
Great. i agree. Game over.
The game was over 50 - 60 posts ago, you just refused to admit it.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
So your only complaint is it wasn't disclosed?
Great. i agree. Game over.
No I also think journalists should not be accepting payment from anything they are for/against. Disclosure though would make it not seem so shady.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
No I also think journalists should not be accepting payment from anything they are for/against. Disclosure though would make it not seem so shady.
So they shouldn't advertise on their programs?
-
Originally posted by rpm
The game was over 50 - 60 posts ago, you just refused to admit it.
I know. I was hoping you could come up with something, though.
Wishful thinking.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What's to add? Nothing to be gained in kicking a man after I've already proven my point.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
hypothetical question
What if it were discovered Dan Rather was receiving money from the DNC? Would that be ok with you? It wouldnt be with me.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
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.
Perhaps you would care to explain what his conflict of interest is then if it is not that he was paid by the administration to tout their views.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
Perhaps you would care to explain what his conflict of interest is then if it is not that he was paid by the administration to tout their views.
The conflict of interest was allowing the DoE to advertise on his program when the advertising was on a subject he covered in his column. The two are independent, but he acknowledged how someone could get the impression they weren't.
-
So were these ads during his show or during appropiate commercial time? Like when they say we are going to a commercial...Or were they purposely misleading as to trying to trick people into believing they were "part" of his show?
-
Originally posted by Raider179
So were these ads during his show or during appropiate commercial time? Like when they say we are going to a commercial...Or were they purposely misleading as to trying to trick people into believing they were "part" of his show?
The were purchased commercials. Why are you so intent on spinning this into something that it isn't?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
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.
Bailing out? I guess if you want me to rub your nose in it, I can oblige you.
Q: Mr. President, do you think it's a proper use of government funds to pay commentators to promote your policies?
BUSH: No.
Q: Are you going to order that ...
BUSH: Therefore I will not pay you to.
Q: Fair enough.
Are you ordering that there be an end...
BUSH: I expect my -- yes, I am. I expect my Cabinet secretaries to make sure that that practice doesn't go forward. There needs to be independence.
And Mr. Armstrong Williams admitted he made a mistake.
And we didn't know about this in the White House. And, you know, there needs to be a nice, independent relationship between the White House and the press and the administration and the press. And so, no, we shouldn't be going forward.
Q: Mr. Williams made a mistake.
BUSH: Who?
Q: Mr. Williams made a mistake. Did the Department of Education make a mistake?
BUSH: Yes, they did.
Q: And what will happen to the people that made this decision?
BUSH: And we've got new leadership going to the Department of Education.
But all our Cabinet secretaries must realize that will not be paying, you know, commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet.
And I'm confident you will be, over the course of the next four years, willing to give our different policies an objective look, won't you?
Yes. I can see that.
Bush agrees with me, I agree with him. You keep saying the links prove your point, but won't show where or how. You keep saying the DOE was running commercials, but show no link to any of these commercials. Were they subliminal? Give it up Martlet. You can't handle the truth and you can't back up your rhetoric.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The were purchased commercials. Why are you so intent on spinning this into something that it isn't?
you sure it was only purchased commercials?
That department, through a contract with the public relations firm Ketchum, hired commentator Armstrong Williams to produce ads that featured former Education Secretary Rod Paige and promoted President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. The contract also committed Williams, who is black, to provide media access for Paige and to persuade other black journalists to talk about the law."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/paid.columnists.ap/index.html
Sounds a lot more than just the two commercials. He also agreed to giving time on the air and persuade other black journalists to talk about it. This is blatant propaghanda.
Save your spin talk for Fox.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Bailing out? I guess if you want me to rub your nose in it, I can oblige you.
Bush agrees with me, I agree with him. You keep saying the links prove your point, but won't show where or how. You keep saying the DOE was running commercials, but show no link to any of these commercials. Were they subliminal? Give it up Martlet. You can't handle the truth and you can't back up your rhetoric.
The article I quoted PAGES ago said exactly that. The DoE purchased advertising on his radio and television show. Period. Bush agrees with you on the same issue I do. Where we part company is when you start spinning this into something it isn't.
Keep spinning, though. It's fun to watch.
This continuing education provided free of charge.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The article I quoted PAGES ago said exactly that. The DoE purchased advertising on his radio and television show. Period.
False look at the above post of mine. He also had other required "duties" of the contract.
-
Originally posted by Raider179
you sure it was only purchased commercials?
That department, through a contract with the public relations firm Ketchum, hired commentator Armstrong Williams to produce ads that featured former Education Secretary Rod Paige and promoted President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. The contract also committed Williams, who is black, to provide media access for Paige and to persuade other black journalists to talk about the law."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/28/paid.columnists.ap/index.html
Sounds a lot more than just the two commercials. He also agreed to giving time on the air and persuade other black journalists to talk about it. This is blatant propaghanda.
Save your spin talk for Fox.
Health and Human Services' Horn stressed McManus was not paid to write favorably to about the administration. Still, he said, HHS has now implemented a rule to prohibit the use of outside consultants or contractors who have any connection with the press.
"There's a growing misperception that taxpayers' money is being used to pay columnists to use their position in the media to portray the administration in a positive light," Horn said. "I felt a compelling need to draw a bright line in order to restore the public's confidence that we are not doing that."
Not to me. Save your spin for DU
-
Originally posted by Martlet
The article I quoted PAGES ago said exactly that. The DoE purchased advertising on his radio and television show. Period. Bush agrees with you on the same issue I do. Where we part company is when you start spinning this into something it isn't.
Nice try, show me where the money did not influence his work or integrity. Did you miss the part where he was to influence other black journalists or are you just choosing to ignoring it?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Nice try, show me where the money did not influence his work or integrity. Did you miss the part where he was to influence other black journalists or are you just choosing to ignoring it?
HA! Yes, I'll show you what he was thinking.
You know your argument is garbage when you start asking for the impossible.
Nice pom poms! YAY....TEAM!
-
alright I see now you have no argument because all you do is throw out bs words like spin and provide nothing of substance. I knew I should have stopped responding to you when you started that read my other post crap instead of making your views clear.
And I know you will come back with some lame remark about how dumb i am for not being able to keep up with you or some junk. I am smart enough to stop debating someone who has interest in the topic but only in the argument. Have a good one
-
Originally posted by Raider179
alright I see now you have no argument because all you do is throw out bs words like spin and provide nothing of substance. I knew I should have stopped responding to you when you started that read my other post crap instead of making your views clear.
And I know you will come back with some lame remark about how dumb i am for not being able to keep up with you or some junk. I am smart enough to stop debating someone who has interest in the topic but only in the argument. Have a good one
I don't blame you for bailing. You're right. You're smart enough to leave when you realize your wrong.
Good on you!
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I don't blame you for bailing. You're right. You're smart enough to leave when you realize your wrong.
Good on you!
See above post. ALso I noticed you pick and choose which information you fight and ignore the other stuff. I see you didnt explain away the other "duties" of williams contract. I do not feel I am wrong but if that makes you feel better about yourself believe what you will about me. I really dont give a ....
-
Originally posted by Raider179
See above post. ALso I noticed you pick and choose which information you fight and ignore the other stuff. I see you didnt explain away the other "duties" of williams contract. I do not feel I am wrong but if that makes you feel better about yourself believe what you will about me. I really dont give a ....
I thought you bowed out? Were you fibbing?
-
You will notice when Martlet has no answer, he will claim victory and spout a few attempts at humor.... no direct answer, only a claim of winning the debate and a congenital need at getting in the last word (which in his mind means he's won).
-
Originally posted by rpm
You will notice when Martlet has no answer, he will claim victory and spout a few attempts at humor.... no direct answer, only a claim of winning the debate and a congenital need at getting in the last word (which in his mind means he's won).
Much like you did 3 pages back?
-
It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling - Robert Persig
Oh - I guess that should have been in the "hmmmm" thread (or not).