How I learned To Quit Worrying and Love The Propaganda

[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.

[Martlet]

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.

[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?

[Martlet]

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.

[rpm]

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.

[Martlet]

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.

[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?

[Martlet]

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.

[rpm]

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.

[Martlet]

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.

[rpm]

Text of Bush's News Conference
Will a transcript be good enough for you?

[rpm]

You can start reading at question 10 if you are having trouble.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by rpm
Text of Bush's News Conference
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.

[Martlet]

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.

[rpm]

[SIZE=10]Pwn3d[/SIZE]