Let's debate the value/legitimacy of gov't propaganda

[BrainGlutton]

@Puffs

Whatever. It does not negate the apparent fact that transparency by Mr Williams, and maybe the stations that carried the broadcast, is what is in question by the government. If it fits your personaly political agenda to want to blame Bush, or his administration, then by all means.

Puffs, if the Bush Admin really did pay Williams to spread its message under cover of journalism/commentary, then the Admin is presumptively to blame for what happened. (Not in the sense of criminal liability, of course, but we’re not anywhere near the point where anyone in the Admin might be indicted, and since the Pubs control Congress and Bush appoints the Attorney General . . . well, you get the idea.) That’s the situation we’re faced with. It was you who tried to shift all the blame to Williams – by pointing out that what he did was illegal. True, I’m sure, but there’s a gap in your logic here. Implicating Williams does not in any sense exonerate Bush – why would it? That’s like saying I bear no blame for the death of my enemy because the assassin I hired to kill him should have known murder was illegal.

[BrainGlutton]

@annaplurabelle

Paul Krugman (Originally published in The New York Times, 5.13.03)

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Web Page

SYNOPSIS: Bad incentives, media consolidation, and implicit favors are turning the media into a toady to the government.

A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news.

Would we all had that option. My cable provider doesn’t carry BBC, and of course I can’t pick it up via broadcast. If I had a sattelite dish, maybe.

[annaplurabelle]

@Puffs

Do departments that have funds appropriated by Congress need to have all transactions itemised and ok’d by Congress before it is spent? And do you know for a fact whether or not Congress appropriated any funds to promote NCLB?

I was basing my comments on the fact that at least 3 Senators were apparently not aware that congress had appropriated funds for Williams to “promote” NCLB.

These are honest questions that I assumed were not issues because all I was aware of was that Mr. Williams did not make aware that he was being paid.

Williams, and only Williams, is culpable for the FCC regulation re disclosure.

The debatable issue, re the govt’s culpability, is whether or not “promoting” is the equivalent of “propaganda” (which would be illegal), or the legally allowable “educating” (informing the public about the law). The fact that it was “covert” is a question as well.

A bit earlier I had read some comments that the Department head had made that makes me want to reserve my judgement on the whole deal. I think we will have to see what is in the contract befre we jump to conclusions.

Everyone is entitled to due process; I’m thinking that an investigation is warranted as to whether or not any of these laws were violated. Do you consider that a partisan stance?

@BrainGlutton

Would we all had that option. My cable provider doesn’t carry BBC, and of course I can’t pick it up via broadcast. If I had a sattelite dish, maybe.

Too bad. I get BBC on PBS here in NYC.

But, you know you can stream it on the internet, right?

[Puffs]

@annaplurabelle

The fact that it was “covert” is a question as well.

I think that would be the question those 3 Senators are making a big to-do about.

@annaplurabelle

Everyone is entitled to due process; I’m thinking that an investigation is warranted as to whether or not any of these laws were violated. Do you consider that a partisan stance?.

Not at all. What I originally replied to, and definately think is partisan was this little gem:

@rjung

Just so, y’know, nobody gets the idea that Armstrong Williams was the first time this group has tried to snow the populace…

[BrainGlutton]

@Puffs

Not at all. What I originally replied to, and definately think is partisan was this little gem:

Any broad criticism of the Bush Administration might fairly be characterized as “partisan.” So what? Ad hominem attacks on the messenger, as opposed to the message, are logically invalid. But what about rjung’s list of instances, taken from the Disinfopedia (not Wikipedia), is faulty? There are six items on the list:

1 Taxpayer-funded Medicare Ads as Campaign Commercials
2 Preemptive War
3 Cheney’s Energy Task Force
4 Promoting the Invasion of Iraq
5 Disinformation Regarding Science
6 Close Personal and Financial Ties to Corporate Crooks

Linked from here:

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_administration_propaganda_and_disinformation

Is there any of these which you would characterize as (1) not really an instance of the Bush Administration conducting propaganda, or as (2) propaganda, but still a proper exercise of the president’s powers?