MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn back home. This was a jolting issue in USA Today newspaper on Friday, that, "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...required commentator Armstrong Williams `to regularly comment on NCLB [No Child Left Behind] 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."
Senators led by Democratic leader Harry Reid have written the president, Albert Hunt, to say that Mr. Williams should give the money back, that this was a violation against the law of blatant government propaganda.
Wait a second...my tax dollars are sponsoring this kind of propaganda?
[Imported comment* originally authored by b.] "MR. RUSSERT: Byron York, how do we do this? How do people know the difference between journalists, commentators, pundit, who's on the take from the government and who is not? This is very confusing.
MR. YORK: Well--but actually the core issue is really very simple, which is disclosure. You've always got to disclose. And, of course, if Armstrong Williams had done that, it would have destroyed his credibility as it did when he came out. But, you know, The New York Times actually quoted the head of Medialink which is the company that does a lot of these video news releases, saying, you know, "The Clinton administration did more of this." This is something that's been going on for quite a while. And you can argue back and forth whether it's an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer funds, but the key question with the video news releases is you've got to know in the actual product, in this story, this was something produced and paid for by the government. If they do that, that's fine. And if Armstrong Williams had said that ahead of time, then we would have viewed him as a PR man, but on the other hand, it wouldn't have been a scandal."
I would dare say that this has been going on in the past longer than Clinton, and will continue to do so, it is difficult to tell who is making money by publishing a story vs. who is making money by publishing someone else's (propaganda, etc.) story. Especially when there are so many ways to cover up the paper trail.
[Imported comment* originally authored by b.] Hey Travis... it looks like it was just an isolated incident.... http://www.thedenverchannel.com/education/4070310/detail.htmlso no need to worry about it.
[Imported comment* originally authored by Travis.] Wow. If McClellan says that it's an isolated incident, well, it must be true.
[Imported comment* originally authored by jason.] b.......i've got a bag of shit worth a million dollars.....seriously, its true......
government sponsored propaganda has been going on FOREVER. and if you get caught being on the take, you should be raked over the coals
[Imported comment* originally authored by Renice.] Fed payola in the entertainment industry during WWII is well documented. During Clinton's admin, drug czar McCaffery openly sold the gov't's msg to movie & tv producers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey], but the FCC later declared the practice illegal. Armstrong says he blurred the boundaries btwn his PR firm and his commentary -- he's sorry and wants us to trust him again [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20050110.shtml]... right. But, if it's illegal, shouldn't the spotlight be on someone else's scummy underbelly?
[Imported comment* originally authored by Renice.] BTW, I've suspected fed encouragement of *some* sort for TV shows like 24 and The Grid since 24's first episode. What better way of preparing the American people to accept a "whatever means necessary" approach to the 'War on Terrorism'?
[Imported comment* originally authored by Travis.] Did you guys know that after we dropped the bombs in Japan in WWII, the US government dismissed reports of radiation sickness as Japanese propaganda?
And up until a few years ago (if I remember this one right), sitcoms would submit scripts to the ONDCP. If they had anti-drug messages in the material they would get credits for those "the more you know" kind of public service ads.
[Imported comment* originally authored by b.] jason pls read my first post where i posted "I would dare say that this has been going on in the past longer than Clinton, and will continue to do so, it is difficult to tell who is making money by publishing a story vs. who is making money by publishing someone else's (propaganda, etc.) story. Especially when there are so many ways to cover up the paper trail."
next time i will try to make my sarcasm so thick you taste it for days.
[Imported comment* originally authored by jason.] i guess you didn't get that i assumed your sarcasm ("so no need to worry about it."). i don't think that you are *that* naive :P
Post a Comment