Yahoo! News - Pelosi: President Urged to Order Full Disclosure of Covert Propaganda: "January 28, 2005 | Nancy Pelosi
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing to request that you direct each department and agency of the Executive Branch to disclose to the appropriate Committee of the House of Representatives all public relations and advertising contracts signed during your Administration.
Over the past year, multiple investigations have revealed that federal agencies have employed secret publicity campaigns to promote administration priorities.
...
In separate analyses, the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites) and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy violated the congressional prohibition on publicity and propaganda by distributing fabricated video news reports.(1)
An investigative report by USA Today revealed that the Department of Education (news - web sites) paid a conservative commentator to support the No Child Left Behind Act in television and radio appearances.(2)
Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported the Department of Health and Human Services had a contract with a syndicated columnist who promoted the President's marriage initiative.(3)
A newly released congressional report found that public relations spending has more than doubled during the Bush Administration.(4)
And today, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon.com reported that the Department of Health and Human Services paid another conservative commentator thousands of dollars to support the marriage initiative, including by speaking about the importance of marriage to churches and community organizations.(5)
...
These developments raise serious concerns. Covert propaganda campaigns are unethical and illegal. Those disclosed to date mislead the American people about public policy and deceive the news media and press about the credibility of critiques of Administration policies. We very much hope the contracts revealed to this point are an aberration and not part of a pattern across federal agencies.
In separate analyses, the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites) and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy violated the congressional prohibition on publicity and propaganda by distributing fabricated video news reports.(1)"
...
These developments raise serious concerns. Covert propaganda campaigns are unethical and illegal. Those disclosed to date mislead the American people about public policy and deceive the news media and press about the credibility of critiques of Administration policies. We very much hope the contracts revealed to this point are an aberration and not part of a pattern across federal agencies.
...
It has already been nearly one month since the Democratic Leader and Ranking Members Henry Waxman, George Miller, David Obey, and Elijah Cummings wrote to you requesting full disclosure of these contracts.(6) To date, we have received no reply to that inquiry. Now that there have been additional revelations, we would appreciate your cooperation with this inquiry, and would appreciate a complete response by March 1, 2005.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Friday, January 28, 2005
Third Columnist paid by Bush Administration [to promote its positions]
The Raw Story | A rational voice � Third Columnist paid by Bush Administration1/27/2005
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.”
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.”
Thursday, January 27, 2005
USATODAY.com - Report: PR spending doubled under Bush
USATODAY.com - Report: PR spending doubled under BushReport: PR spending doubled under Bush | By Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has more than doubled its spending on outside contracts with public relations firms during the past four years, according to an analysis of federal procurement data by congressional Democrats.
The administration spent at least $88 million in fiscal 2004 on contracts with major public relations firms, the analysis found, compared with $37 million in 2001, Bush's first year in office. In all, the administration spent $250 million on public relations contracts during its first term, compared with $128 million spent for President Clinton between 1997 and 2000. The analysis did not examine what the Clinton administration spent during its first term.
The top-spending agency during the past four years, at $94 million, was the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The biggest federal public relations contractor in that period was Ketchum, with $97 million.
...
The administration's public relations efforts have been under scrutiny since USA TODAY reported that the Education Department, through a Ketchum contract, paid $240,000 to conservative commentator Armstrong Williams for helping to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind program.
...
On Wednesday, TheWashington Post reported that syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, an authority on marriage and family issues, had received two federal contracts totaling $41,500 for writing brochures, a magazine article and a report and briefing government employees in support of the president's marriage initiative. That program called for redirecting welfare funds to pay for premarital counseling and abstinence education.
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has more than doubled its spending on outside contracts with public relations firms during the past four years, according to an analysis of federal procurement data by congressional Democrats.
The administration spent at least $88 million in fiscal 2004 on contracts with major public relations firms, the analysis found, compared with $37 million in 2001, Bush's first year in office. In all, the administration spent $250 million on public relations contracts during its first term, compared with $128 million spent for President Clinton between 1997 and 2000. The analysis did not examine what the Clinton administration spent during its first term.
The top-spending agency during the past four years, at $94 million, was the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The biggest federal public relations contractor in that period was Ketchum, with $97 million.
...
The administration's public relations efforts have been under scrutiny since USA TODAY reported that the Education Department, through a Ketchum contract, paid $240,000 to conservative commentator Armstrong Williams for helping to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind program.
...
On Wednesday, TheWashington Post reported that syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, an authority on marriage and family issues, had received two federal contracts totaling $41,500 for writing brochures, a magazine article and a report and briefing government employees in support of the president's marriage initiative. That program called for redirecting welfare funds to pay for premarital counseling and abstinence education.
Sens. to Introduce 'Stop Government Propaganda Act': "The President said that his cabinet agencies made a mistake when they paid commentators"
Sens. to Introduce 'Stop Government Propaganda Act': "Sens. to Introduce 'Stop Government Propaganda Act' | credit: Aya Kawano | By Brian Orloff | Published: January 27, 2005 12:10 PM ET
NEW YORK In response to continued revelations of government-funded "journalism" -- ranging from the purported video news releases put out by the drug czar's office and the Department of Health and Human Services to the recently uncovered payments to columnists Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher,who flacked administration programs -- Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce a bill, The Stop Government Propaganda Act, in the Senate next week.
"It's just not enough to say, 'Please don't do it anymore,'" Alex Formuzis, Lautenberg's spokesman, told E&P. "Legislation sometimes is required and we believe it is in this case."
The Stop Government Propaganda Act states, "Funds appropriated to an Executive branch agency may not be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless authorized by law."
"It's time for Congress to shut down the Administration's propaganda mill," Lautenberg said in a statement. "It has no place in the United States Government." The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jon Corzine (D-N.J.). ...
...
The act would allow citizens to bring qui tam lawsuits on behalf of the United States government when the Department of Justice does not respond.
If the matter is taken to court, the bill proposes that the senior official responsible would be fined three times the amount of the "misspent taxpayer funds" plus an additional fine ranging from $5,000 to $10,000. And if a citizen's qui tam suit is accepted, the bill proposes that the plaintiff receives between 25 and 30% of the proceeds of the fine.
"The President said that his cabinet agencies made a mistake when they paid commentators to promote his agenda," Kennedy said in a statement. "It's more than just a mistake, it's an abuse of taxpayer funds and an abuse of the First Amendment and freedom of the press. ... If the President is serious about stopping these abuses, he will support this legislation."
NEW YORK In response to continued revelations of government-funded "journalism" -- ranging from the purported video news releases put out by the drug czar's office and the Department of Health and Human Services to the recently uncovered payments to columnists Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher,who flacked administration programs -- Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce a bill, The Stop Government Propaganda Act, in the Senate next week.
"It's just not enough to say, 'Please don't do it anymore,'" Alex Formuzis, Lautenberg's spokesman, told E&P. "Legislation sometimes is required and we believe it is in this case."
The Stop Government Propaganda Act states, "Funds appropriated to an Executive branch agency may not be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless authorized by law."
"It's time for Congress to shut down the Administration's propaganda mill," Lautenberg said in a statement. "It has no place in the United States Government." The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jon Corzine (D-N.J.). ...
...
The act would allow citizens to bring qui tam lawsuits on behalf of the United States government when the Department of Justice does not respond.
If the matter is taken to court, the bill proposes that the senior official responsible would be fined three times the amount of the "misspent taxpayer funds" plus an additional fine ranging from $5,000 to $10,000. And if a citizen's qui tam suit is accepted, the bill proposes that the plaintiff receives between 25 and 30% of the proceeds of the fine.
"The President said that his cabinet agencies made a mistake when they paid commentators to promote his agenda," Kennedy said in a statement. "It's more than just a mistake, it's an abuse of taxpayer funds and an abuse of the First Amendment and freedom of the press. ... If the President is serious about stopping these abuses, he will support this legislation."
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Turner [founder of CNN] Compares Fox's Popularity to Hitler
Broadcasting & Cable - Turner�Compares Fox's Popularity to Hitler: "Turner Compares Fox's Popularity to Hitler
By Jim Finkle -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/25/2005 2:14:00 PM
Ted Turner called Fox a propaganda tool of the Bush administration and indirectly compared Fox News Channel's popularity to Adolf Hitler's popular election to run Germany before World War II.
Turner made those fiery comments in his first address at the National Association for Television Programming Executives' conference since he was ousted from Time Warner Inc. five years ago.
...
Turner's comment came just days after another Nazi reference to Fox.
Gilmore Girls Executive Producer Amy Sherman-Palladino had some choice words for Fox's American Idol at a WB panel at the critics tour in L.A. Saturday. (Both shows air Tuesday at 8 p.m.) American Idol is like the Nazis marching through Poland," she said
...
Among the other Turner highlights from Tuesday:
* On Fox News: While Fox may be the largest news network [and has overtaken Turner's CNN], it's not the best, Turner said. He followed up by pointing out that Adolph Hitler got the most votes when he was elected to run Germany prior to WWII. He said the network is the propaganda tool for the Bush Administration. "There's nothing wrong with that. It's certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy. Particularly when the news is dumbed down," leaving voters without critical information on politics and world events and overloaded with fluff," he said.
* On media consolidation:"The consolidation has made it almost impossible for an independent. It's virtually impossible to start a cable network." Broadcasters and programmers "don't want more independent voices out there. They own everything. That's why I went into the restaurant business. Either that or I'd work for a salary for one of the big jerks.
By Jim Finkle -- Broadcasting & Cable, 1/25/2005 2:14:00 PM
Ted Turner called Fox a propaganda tool of the Bush administration and indirectly compared Fox News Channel's popularity to Adolf Hitler's popular election to run Germany before World War II.
Turner made those fiery comments in his first address at the National Association for Television Programming Executives' conference since he was ousted from Time Warner Inc. five years ago.
...
Turner's comment came just days after another Nazi reference to Fox.
Gilmore Girls Executive Producer Amy Sherman-Palladino had some choice words for Fox's American Idol at a WB panel at the critics tour in L.A. Saturday. (Both shows air Tuesday at 8 p.m.) American Idol is like the Nazis marching through Poland," she said
...
Among the other Turner highlights from Tuesday:
* On Fox News: While Fox may be the largest news network [and has overtaken Turner's CNN], it's not the best, Turner said. He followed up by pointing out that Adolph Hitler got the most votes when he was elected to run Germany prior to WWII. He said the network is the propaganda tool for the Bush Administration. "There's nothing wrong with that. It's certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy. Particularly when the news is dumbed down," leaving voters without critical information on politics and world events and overloaded with fluff," he said.
* On media consolidation:"The consolidation has made it almost impossible for an independent. It's virtually impossible to start a cable network." Broadcasters and programmers "don't want more independent voices out there. They own everything. That's why I went into the restaurant business. Either that or I'd work for a salary for one of the big jerks.
More "Pay-to-Sway' Journalists on Government Payroll, promoting Bush agendas and testifying as "independent" experts to Congree
Wednesday, Jan. 26, 2005
HRC: INVESTIGATE ‘PAY-TO-SWAY’ COLUMNIST FOR POSSIBLE LEGAL VIOLATIONS
‘The public deserves to know if there are other ‘pay-to-sway’ columnists and opinion leaders on the Bush administration payroll,’ said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg.
WASHINGTON — In a letter to the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Human Rights Campaign requested an investigation to determine whether columnist Maggie Gallagher, having received more than $40,000 in federal grants to promote President Bush’s marriage initiatives, violated federal law by not disclosing the funding to the public or Congress. Gallagher testified in the Senate in support of the discriminatory constitutional amendment and wrote numerous syndicated columns on these issues.
“The public deserves to know if there are other ‘pay-to-sway’ columnists and opinion leaders on the Bush administration payroll,” said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg. In the letter, Stachelberg wrote, “The failure to disclose a financial conflict-of-interest seems to us to be a clear violation of the public’s trust in journalistic integrity. We would like to know whether federal law or congressional rules were violated when Gallagher testified before Congress, testimony that to our knowledge was not preceded by disclosures of these financial contracts and interests. … In an era of pinched funding, where critical health care and social service programs are experiencing severe budget cuts, we find the use of government funds for political advocacy to be deeply troubling.”
Gallagher appeared as a witness for the majority at the Senate hearings on the Federal Marriage Amendment (later renamed the Marriage Protection Amendment) on Sept. 4, 2003, and March 3, 2004. According to a Jan. 26, 2005, Washington Post article, Gallagher received more than $40,000 in federal funding. Gallagher’s funding included a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president’s $300 million marriage promotion initiatives and an additional $20,000 in funding in 2002 and 2003 for writing the report “Can Government Strengthen Marriage?”
HRC: INVESTIGATE ‘PAY-TO-SWAY’ COLUMNIST FOR POSSIBLE LEGAL VIOLATIONS
‘The public deserves to know if there are other ‘pay-to-sway’ columnists and opinion leaders on the Bush administration payroll,’ said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg.
WASHINGTON — In a letter to the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, the Human Rights Campaign requested an investigation to determine whether columnist Maggie Gallagher, having received more than $40,000 in federal grants to promote President Bush’s marriage initiatives, violated federal law by not disclosing the funding to the public or Congress. Gallagher testified in the Senate in support of the discriminatory constitutional amendment and wrote numerous syndicated columns on these issues.
“The public deserves to know if there are other ‘pay-to-sway’ columnists and opinion leaders on the Bush administration payroll,” said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg. In the letter, Stachelberg wrote, “The failure to disclose a financial conflict-of-interest seems to us to be a clear violation of the public’s trust in journalistic integrity. We would like to know whether federal law or congressional rules were violated when Gallagher testified before Congress, testimony that to our knowledge was not preceded by disclosures of these financial contracts and interests. … In an era of pinched funding, where critical health care and social service programs are experiencing severe budget cuts, we find the use of government funds for political advocacy to be deeply troubling.”
Gallagher appeared as a witness for the majority at the Senate hearings on the Federal Marriage Amendment (later renamed the Marriage Protection Amendment) on Sept. 4, 2003, and March 3, 2004. According to a Jan. 26, 2005, Washington Post article, Gallagher received more than $40,000 in federal funding. Gallagher’s funding included a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president’s $300 million marriage promotion initiatives and an additional $20,000 in funding in 2002 and 2003 for writing the report “Can Government Strengthen Marriage?”
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Kristol, Krauthammer lauded Bush inauguration speech without disclosing their role as consultants
Kristol, Krauthammer lauded Bush inauguration s ... [Media Matters for America]: "Kristol, Krauthammer lauded Bush inauguration speech without disclosing their role as consultants
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol lauded President George W. Bush's inauguration speech as 'powerful,' 'impressive,' and 'historic,' both in an article for the January 31 print edition of The Weekly Standard and as a FOX News political contributor during FOX's live coverage of Inauguration Day. Washington Post columnist and FOX News contributor Charles Krauthammer, also during FOX News' live Inauguration Day coverage, called Bush's speech 'revolutionary' and compared it to fomer President John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address. But Kristol and Krauthammer were consultants for Bush's speech -- a fact that neither disclosed."
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol lauded President George W. Bush's inauguration speech as 'powerful,' 'impressive,' and 'historic,' both in an article for the January 31 print edition of The Weekly Standard and as a FOX News political contributor during FOX's live coverage of Inauguration Day. Washington Post columnist and FOX News contributor Charles Krauthammer, also during FOX News' live Inauguration Day coverage, called Bush's speech 'revolutionary' and compared it to fomer President John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address. But Kristol and Krauthammer were consultants for Bush's speech -- a fact that neither disclosed."
Kristol, Krauthammer lauded Bush inauguration speech without disclosing their role as consultants
Kristol, Krauthammer lauded Bush inauguration s ... [Media Matters for America]: "Kristol, Krauthammer lauded Bush inauguration speech without disclosing their role as consultants
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol lauded President George W. Bush's inauguration speech as 'powerful,' 'impressive,' and 'historic,' both in an article for the January 31 print edition of The Weekly Standard and as a FOX News political contributor during FOX's live coverage of Inauguration Day. Washington Post columnist and FOX News contributor Charles Krauthammer, also during FOX News' live Inauguration Day coverage, called Bush's speech 'revolutionary' and compared it to fomer President John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address. But Kristol and Krauthammer were consultants for Bush's speech -- a fact that neither disclosed."
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol lauded President George W. Bush's inauguration speech as 'powerful,' 'impressive,' and 'historic,' both in an article for the January 31 print edition of The Weekly Standard and as a FOX News political contributor during FOX's live coverage of Inauguration Day. Washington Post columnist and FOX News contributor Charles Krauthammer, also during FOX News' live Inauguration Day coverage, called Bush's speech 'revolutionary' and compared it to fomer President John F. Kennedy's 1961 inaugural address. But Kristol and Krauthammer were consultants for Bush's speech -- a fact that neither disclosed."
Friday, January 21, 2005
Cultural and Commerical Influences on the Free Press
Washington Watch: Cultural and Commerical Influences on the Free Press
...
Major reporters, their editors, TV news presenters and commentators, and the government officials and other newsmakers they cover, form a very small circle in Washington DC and New York.
In addition to sharing the cultural values and understandings common to all Americans, the members of this small group of elites share the same social class, are neighbors, socialize together and even live in worlds connected by a revolving door. While much has been made of the revolving door that exists between government and business, the revolving door that connects media and government should not be overlooked. And much the same is true of the commentators or analysts hired by the networks to interpret the news.
This group, as a whole, therefore, largely shares a similar worldview, the same sense of history, or lack of history, and the same shared narrative of policy and self-imposed limits of available policy options of those government officials they are covering.
This is also true of the guests invited by the media for interviews, and those on whom they rely as “sources.” Overwhelming percentages of these guests, commentators and analysts are government officials, former government officials, or former military officers.
A study conducted by FAIR, a media monitoring group in October of 2003, for example, found that over three-fourths of all commentators invited to appear on TV news programs were current or former US government officials, divided about evenly between civilian and military officials, and almost 80% of all these guests were supportive of the Administration’s policies.
...
In this world, pack journalism or “group think” becomes a problem.
...
Most US cities now only have one newspaper and large cities have two, and only rarely more than that.
As a result of this consolidation, the sources of information have become fewer and less diverse.
It is inevitable, therefore, that in this new world of media, corporate and commercial interests will trump other considerations. Profits must be made, shareholders demand it; market shares must be protected, government regulators must be appeased and politicians must be courted.
...
In this brave new world of commercial journalism where “audience share” is the key to survival, and higher ratings equal higher advertising revenue, media, like politicians, follow polls and hesitate to step outside of what is “conventional wisdom.”
So it was, in the lead-up to the war with Iraq, the media was shamelessly complicit in echoing the Administration’s drumbeat for war. Special logos were created with dramatic themes, like “Countdown to War.” One network even put a clock in the lower corner of the screen ticking down the time until the war’s start.
The media monitoring group FAIR suggested that the media behaved more like “stenographers” than journalists. They reported without question and, at times, even became conduits for “disinformation campaigns.”
As a result, the extremely effective public relations effort of the White House was able to utilize a compliant media to build public support for the war. But more on this next week. ...
...
Major reporters, their editors, TV news presenters and commentators, and the government officials and other newsmakers they cover, form a very small circle in Washington DC and New York.
In addition to sharing the cultural values and understandings common to all Americans, the members of this small group of elites share the same social class, are neighbors, socialize together and even live in worlds connected by a revolving door. While much has been made of the revolving door that exists between government and business, the revolving door that connects media and government should not be overlooked. And much the same is true of the commentators or analysts hired by the networks to interpret the news.
This group, as a whole, therefore, largely shares a similar worldview, the same sense of history, or lack of history, and the same shared narrative of policy and self-imposed limits of available policy options of those government officials they are covering.
This is also true of the guests invited by the media for interviews, and those on whom they rely as “sources.” Overwhelming percentages of these guests, commentators and analysts are government officials, former government officials, or former military officers.
A study conducted by FAIR, a media monitoring group in October of 2003, for example, found that over three-fourths of all commentators invited to appear on TV news programs were current or former US government officials, divided about evenly between civilian and military officials, and almost 80% of all these guests were supportive of the Administration’s policies.
...
In this world, pack journalism or “group think” becomes a problem.
...
Most US cities now only have one newspaper and large cities have two, and only rarely more than that.
As a result of this consolidation, the sources of information have become fewer and less diverse.
It is inevitable, therefore, that in this new world of media, corporate and commercial interests will trump other considerations. Profits must be made, shareholders demand it; market shares must be protected, government regulators must be appeased and politicians must be courted.
...
In this brave new world of commercial journalism where “audience share” is the key to survival, and higher ratings equal higher advertising revenue, media, like politicians, follow polls and hesitate to step outside of what is “conventional wisdom.”
So it was, in the lead-up to the war with Iraq, the media was shamelessly complicit in echoing the Administration’s drumbeat for war. Special logos were created with dramatic themes, like “Countdown to War.” One network even put a clock in the lower corner of the screen ticking down the time until the war’s start.
The media monitoring group FAIR suggested that the media behaved more like “stenographers” than journalists. They reported without question and, at times, even became conduits for “disinformation campaigns.”
As a result, the extremely effective public relations effort of the White House was able to utilize a compliant media to build public support for the war. But more on this next week. ...
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Social Security Deception Funded with Tax Payers' Dollars
Social Security Deception Funded with Tax Payers' Dollars: "January 18, 2005 by CommonDreams.org | Distributed to newspapers by Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services | by Mark Weisbrot
Using taxpayers' dollars and government employees to deceive the public is generally prohibited, but lately this seems to have become standard operating procedure. The latest outrage is the Bush Administration's conscription of federal employees at the Social Security Administration in its effort to convince the public that Social Security is in 'crisis.'
This comes on the heels of a scandal involving the Department of Education payment of $240,000 of taxpayers' money to commentator Armstrong Williams to promote the Administration's 'No Child Left Behind' education agenda.
Last September the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that Tom Scully, former head of Medicare in the Bush Administration, broke the law when he threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster. Mr. Foster had wanted to disclose the agency's new estimate of the Medicare prescription drug bill, but backed off when Scully threatened to fire him. At the time, the Bush administration was telling Congress it would cost no more than $400 billion, but Medicare's actuaries had put the cost at $500-$600 billion, which was later accepted as more accurate.
The Bush Administration also used taxpayers' money to sell its Medicare prescription drug bill. It all adds up to a disturbing pattern of deception and abuse of federal offices and funds to advance a partisan political agenda. ...
Using taxpayers' dollars and government employees to deceive the public is generally prohibited, but lately this seems to have become standard operating procedure. The latest outrage is the Bush Administration's conscription of federal employees at the Social Security Administration in its effort to convince the public that Social Security is in 'crisis.'
This comes on the heels of a scandal involving the Department of Education payment of $240,000 of taxpayers' money to commentator Armstrong Williams to promote the Administration's 'No Child Left Behind' education agenda.
Last September the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that Tom Scully, former head of Medicare in the Bush Administration, broke the law when he threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster. Mr. Foster had wanted to disclose the agency's new estimate of the Medicare prescription drug bill, but backed off when Scully threatened to fire him. At the time, the Bush administration was telling Congress it would cost no more than $400 billion, but Medicare's actuaries had put the cost at $500-$600 billion, which was later accepted as more accurate.
The Bush Administration also used taxpayers' money to sell its Medicare prescription drug bill. It all adds up to a disturbing pattern of deception and abuse of federal offices and funds to advance a partisan political agenda. ...
A televisual fairyland: US media is disciplined by corporate America: they decide what the public will and won't be allowed to hear
Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment | A televisual fairyland: "A televisual fairyland | The US media is disciplined by corporate America into promoting the Republican cause | George Monbiot | Tuesday January 18, 2005
On Thursday, the fairy king of fairyland will be recrowned. He was elected on a platform suspended in midair by the power of imagination. He is the leader of a band of men who walk through ghostly realms unvisited by reality. And he remains the most powerful person on earth.
...
... In September, its 60 Minutes programme ran an investigation into how George Bush avoided the Vietnam draft. ...
The incident couldn't have been more helpful to Bush. ...
It's true, of course, that CBS should have taken more care. But I think it is safe to assume that if the network had instead broadcast unsustainable allegations about John Kerry, none of its executives would now be looking for work. How many people have lost their jobs, at CBS or anywhere else, for repeating bogus stories released by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about Kerry's record in Vietnam? How many were sacked for misreporting the Jessica Lynch affair? Or for claiming that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons programme in 2003? Or that he was buying uranium from Niger, or using mobile biological weapons labs, or had a hand in 9/11? How many people were sacked, during Clinton's presidency, for broadcasting outright lies about the Whitewater affair? The answer, in all cases, is none.
....
This is not the first time something like this has happened. In 1998, CNN made a programme which claimed that, during the Vietnam war, US special forces dropped sarin gas on defectors who had fled to Laos. In this case, there was plenty of evidence to support the story. But after four weeks of furious denunciations, the network's owner, Ted Turner, publicly apologised in terms you would expect to hear during a show trial in North Korea: "I'll take my shirt off and beat myself bloody on the back." CNN had erred, he said, by broadcasting the allegations when "we didn't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt".
...
These stories, in other words, are illustrations of the ways in which the US media is disciplined by corporate America. In the first case the other corporate broadcasters joined forces to punish a dissenter in their ranks. In the second case a corporation captured what was once a dissenting programme and turned it into another means of engineering conformity.
The role of the media corporations in the US is similar to that of repressive state regimes elsewhere: they decide what the public will and won't be allowed to hear, and either punish or recruit the social deviants who insist on telling a different story. The journalists they employ do what almost all journalists working under repressive regimes do: they internalise the demands of the censor, and understand, before anyone has told them, what is permissible and what is not.
So, when they are faced with a choice between a fable which helps the Republicans, and a reality which hurts them, they choose the fable. As their fantasies accumulate, the story they tell about the world veers further and further from reality. Anyone who tries to bring the people back down to earth is denounced as a traitor and a fantasist. And anyone who seeks to become president must first learn to live in fairyland.
On Thursday, the fairy king of fairyland will be recrowned. He was elected on a platform suspended in midair by the power of imagination. He is the leader of a band of men who walk through ghostly realms unvisited by reality. And he remains the most powerful person on earth.
...
... In September, its 60 Minutes programme ran an investigation into how George Bush avoided the Vietnam draft. ...
The incident couldn't have been more helpful to Bush. ...
It's true, of course, that CBS should have taken more care. But I think it is safe to assume that if the network had instead broadcast unsustainable allegations about John Kerry, none of its executives would now be looking for work. How many people have lost their jobs, at CBS or anywhere else, for repeating bogus stories released by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth about Kerry's record in Vietnam? How many were sacked for misreporting the Jessica Lynch affair? Or for claiming that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons programme in 2003? Or that he was buying uranium from Niger, or using mobile biological weapons labs, or had a hand in 9/11? How many people were sacked, during Clinton's presidency, for broadcasting outright lies about the Whitewater affair? The answer, in all cases, is none.
....
This is not the first time something like this has happened. In 1998, CNN made a programme which claimed that, during the Vietnam war, US special forces dropped sarin gas on defectors who had fled to Laos. In this case, there was plenty of evidence to support the story. But after four weeks of furious denunciations, the network's owner, Ted Turner, publicly apologised in terms you would expect to hear during a show trial in North Korea: "I'll take my shirt off and beat myself bloody on the back." CNN had erred, he said, by broadcasting the allegations when "we didn't have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt".
...
These stories, in other words, are illustrations of the ways in which the US media is disciplined by corporate America. In the first case the other corporate broadcasters joined forces to punish a dissenter in their ranks. In the second case a corporation captured what was once a dissenting programme and turned it into another means of engineering conformity.
The role of the media corporations in the US is similar to that of repressive state regimes elsewhere: they decide what the public will and won't be allowed to hear, and either punish or recruit the social deviants who insist on telling a different story. The journalists they employ do what almost all journalists working under repressive regimes do: they internalise the demands of the censor, and understand, before anyone has told them, what is permissible and what is not.
So, when they are faced with a choice between a fable which helps the Republicans, and a reality which hurts them, they choose the fable. As their fantasies accumulate, the story they tell about the world veers further and further from reality. Anyone who tries to bring the people back down to earth is denounced as a traitor and a fantasist. And anyone who seeks to become president must first learn to live in fairyland.
Crisis-mongering on Social Security: [once again] the politicization of the agencies and the intimidation of the analysts: blatantly political role
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: That Magic Moment: "By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: January 18, 2005
...
Everyone has noticed the use, once again, of crisis-mongering. ...
But there's another parallel, which I haven't seen pointed out: the politicization of the agencies and the intimidation of the analysts. Bush loyalists begin frothing at the mouth when anyone points out that the White House pressured intelligence analysts to overstate the threat from Iraq, while neocons in the Pentagon pressured the military to understate the costs and risks of war. But that is what happened, and it's happening again.
Last week Andrew Biggs, the associate commissioner for retirement policy at the Social Security Administration, appeared with Mr. Bush at a campaign-style event to promote privatization. There was a time when it would have been considered inappropriate for a civil servant to play such a blatantly political role. But then there was a time when it would have been considered inappropriate to appoint a professional advocate like Mr. Biggs, the former assistant director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Privatization, to such a position in the first place.
Sure enough, The New York Times reports that under Mr. Biggs's direction, employees of the Social Security Administration are being forced to disseminate dire warnings about the system's finances - warnings that the employees say are exaggerated.
Still, there are two reasons why the selling of Social Security privatization shouldn't be another slam dunk.
One is that we're not talking about secret intelligence; the media, if they do their job, can check out the numbers and see that they don't match what Mr. Bush is saying. (A good starting point is Roger Lowenstein's superb survey in The Times Magazine last Sunday.)
The other is that we've been here before. Fool me once ...
...
Everyone has noticed the use, once again, of crisis-mongering. ...
But there's another parallel, which I haven't seen pointed out: the politicization of the agencies and the intimidation of the analysts. Bush loyalists begin frothing at the mouth when anyone points out that the White House pressured intelligence analysts to overstate the threat from Iraq, while neocons in the Pentagon pressured the military to understate the costs and risks of war. But that is what happened, and it's happening again.
Last week Andrew Biggs, the associate commissioner for retirement policy at the Social Security Administration, appeared with Mr. Bush at a campaign-style event to promote privatization. There was a time when it would have been considered inappropriate for a civil servant to play such a blatantly political role. But then there was a time when it would have been considered inappropriate to appoint a professional advocate like Mr. Biggs, the former assistant director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Privatization, to such a position in the first place.
Sure enough, The New York Times reports that under Mr. Biggs's direction, employees of the Social Security Administration are being forced to disseminate dire warnings about the system's finances - warnings that the employees say are exaggerated.
Still, there are two reasons why the selling of Social Security privatization shouldn't be another slam dunk.
One is that we're not talking about secret intelligence; the media, if they do their job, can check out the numbers and see that they don't match what Mr. Bush is saying. (A good starting point is Roger Lowenstein's superb survey in The Times Magazine last Sunday.)
The other is that we've been here before. Fool me once ...
Monday, January 17, 2005
USATODAY.com - Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law
USATODAY.com - Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law: "1/7/2005 12:17 AM Updated 1/7/2005 11:16 AM | By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.
The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.
Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in."
The top Democrat on the House Education Committee, Rep. George Miller of California, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." He said he will ask his Republican counterpart to join him in requesting an investigation.
...
Williams, 45, a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of the top black conservative voices in the nation. He hosts The Right Side on TV and radio, and writes op-ed pieces for newspapers, including USA TODAY, while running a public relations firm, Graham Williams Group.
Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.
The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.
Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in."
The top Democrat on the House Education Committee, Rep. George Miller of California, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." He said he will ask his Republican counterpart to join him in requesting an investigation.
...
Williams, 45, a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of the top black conservative voices in the nation. He hosts The Right Side on TV and radio, and writes op-ed pieces for newspapers, including USA TODAY, while running a public relations firm, Graham Williams Group.
Sunday, January 16, 2005
WSJ Chief editorial writer served on Bush board with Armstrong Williams
1/16/2005
Conflict of interest questions arise at paper which disparaged liberal bloggers | By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor
The chief editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal, the paper which disparaged two progressive blogs over accepting money from Howard Dean’s campaign, serves on President Bush’s fellowship board with Armstrong Williams, RAW STORY has learned. He is also being hired as chief speechwriter for the Bush Administration.
William McGurn, chief editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal serves with fallen columnist Armstrong Williams on the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships.
Williams was surreptitiously paid $240,000 by the Bush Education Department to promote the president’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ law, and was subsequently dismissed by the distributor of his column.
Conflict of interest questions arise at paper which disparaged liberal bloggers | By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor
The chief editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal, the paper which disparaged two progressive blogs over accepting money from Howard Dean’s campaign, serves on President Bush’s fellowship board with Armstrong Williams, RAW STORY has learned. He is also being hired as chief speechwriter for the Bush Administration.
William McGurn, chief editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal serves with fallen columnist Armstrong Williams on the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships.
Williams was surreptitiously paid $240,000 by the Bush Education Department to promote the president’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ law, and was subsequently dismissed by the distributor of his column.
Social Security Agency Is Enlisted to Push Its Own Revision
The New York Times > Washington > Social Security Agency Is Enlisted to Push Its Own Revision: "By ROBERT PEAR | Published: January 16, 2005
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - Over the objections of many of its own employees, the Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to convince the public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution.
The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including a "tactical plan" for communications and marketing of the idea that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action.
Social Security officials say the agency is carrying out its mission to educate the public, including more than 47 million beneficiaries, and to support President Bush's agenda.
"The system is broken, and promises are being made that Social Security cannot keep," Mr. Bush said in his Saturday radio address. He is expected to address the issue in his Inaugural Address.
But agency employees have complained to Social Security officials that they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program. They question the accuracy of recent statements by the agency, and they say that money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for such advocacy.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - Over the objections of many of its own employees, the Social Security Administration is gearing up for a major effort to publicize the financial problems of Social Security and to convince the public that private accounts are needed as part of any solution.
The agency's plans are set forth in internal documents, including a "tactical plan" for communications and marketing of the idea that Social Security faces dire financial problems requiring immediate action.
Social Security officials say the agency is carrying out its mission to educate the public, including more than 47 million beneficiaries, and to support President Bush's agenda.
"The system is broken, and promises are being made that Social Security cannot keep," Mr. Bush said in his Saturday radio address. He is expected to address the issue in his Inaugural Address.
But agency employees have complained to Social Security officials that they are being conscripted into a political battle over the future of the program. They question the accuracy of recent statements by the agency, and they say that money from the Social Security trust fund should not be used for such advocacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)