First Armstrong Williams, now Maggie Gallagher, are discovered to be paid mouthpieces for Bush policy. Should the Bush Administration now disclose all remaining journalists who have been paid off, or will it be less damaging to let the sordid details dribble out as investigative journalists ferret them out?
Yes, they should. In this article originally published in the New York Times, we can see that Williams was not an isolated incident.
In the same article, we see the hypocrisy of Dick Cheney exposed:
As the article indicates, Cheney was chastising the press to Mr. Williams for the same offense that the administration was putting Williams on the payroll for.
Hee. Hee hee hee. Hee hee hee hee hee BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! BAHAHAHAHA! What, are they jealous they work for free?
The answer to the OP is “no.” For two reasons: They shouldn’t be paying for editorial content at all in supposedly independent outlets, so they should have nothing to disclose. To the extent they’ve done so, they should disclose the past ones and stop doing it.
The other reason is more apt to the Gallagher situation. No, they shouldn’t disclose it any more or less than they disclose other government contracts. It makes perfect sense to hire a nationally known writer on marriage issues to create content for a marriage campaign and the government did nothing wrong by letting the contract. The ethical lapse was on Gallagher’s part. So whilst other journalists who have entered into similar contracts ought to dislcose their relationships, the government should not.
There’s nothing wrong with the government hiring writers and publicists to advance a particular government goal.
There is no reason to keep that secret, however.
If there are any other journalists on the take, it should be disclosed.
Did you actually research that?[url=http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/a/01_propaganda.htm]GAO regs do exist.
Let the microparsing by the “It’s okay if you’re a Republican” faction begin. Continue, rather.
From the article linked in the OP:
:rolleyes: No, dumbass. You violated journalistic ethics when you accepted the money. :mad:
Big of him.
And why shoud we trust him to see this done? To my mind, the folks who can dream this up are not to be trusted, period.
Same guy wants Osama dead or alive.
Good. It was a bad practice. However, the ethics of the whole matter need to be discussed here.
Gallagher and Williams aren’t reporters, mind. They’re commentators. As such, it’s no ethical problem for them to have a viewpoint. It’s also not unethical for them to have other interests or business ventures outside of their punditry.
However, where these things intersect, full disclosure should be made to readers. And responsibility for such falls on those doing the writing.
Early in the fall, Peggy Noonan left her Wall Street Journal column to work for the Bush campaign. This was announced at the time. After the campaign was over, she resumed the column. Since everything was disclosed, and legal, there is no ethical issue to speak of.
Well the torture stopped at Abu Ghraib as soon as the president told em to stop, didn’t it?
But I didn’t see him order cabinet secretaries to disclose prior payments to pundits. Why not?
I thought it was fairly gutless of him to lay all the blame at the heads of his Cabinet secretaries.
The good thing is that Democrats are introducing legislation to try to clean up the ethical lapses of the Republicans in Congress. This at the same time the Republicans will vote to approve Gonzalez, who clearly lied to the Senate about his role in Bush’s jury duty matter. The dubious ethics of the Republicans continue to get lots of airplay, and their defenders allow for a great opportunity to define the fight.
Probably because it was illegal, and/or out of embarrassment as to how much of his positive press is bought and paid for.
The journalist is the one who has to disclose, and has to do so each time he or she publishes something related to the contract. Even if the administration did disclose this info, there’s no way they could do so at that appropriate time-- ie, when the journalist published on his or her own.
I don’t see the ethics violation here (by the administration, that is), as the payment was for specific material published under the byline of the government agency. The violation is on Gallagher’s part only. From the OP’s link:
But the real point of my OP is not so much the ethics of the payments, rather what should Bush do to minimize the damage? Whether it is ethical by the letter of the law is really irrelevant; it is the perception by the public that the White House was using clandestine means to spin the media and build support for their policies. My question here is, can the President limit the damage by full disclosure, or should he wait until more of these payoffs are revealed?
As a taxpayer, are you at all bothered that the Bush administration spent $300 million to promote marriage? Exactly what did that money buy? I think that for the past 228+ years, Americans were able to figure out how to get married on their own. Have marriage rates gone up since that money was spent? Have divorce rates gone down? Even if the stats have improved, is it any of the government’s concern? And exactly how do people that want to promote their morality, spend taxpayers’ money doing it, and then spend more tax money praising the program get to call themselves “conservative”?
If the violation was of Gallagher’s part only, then why is the GAO investigating? And what of this from ElvisL1ves’ cite: “No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress.”
Gallagher says she was not paid to promote the president’s program in her columns. Perhaps there is no written quid pro quo. But I can’t believe that if Gallagher were critical of the president, she would have gotten the contract. How coincidental that the columnists on the take are also shills for the administration. The proper thing for Gallagher and Williams and the other paid shills is to return the money. This is our tax money being wasted here, it isn’t Bush’s private slush fund.
True, and my post was directed more at those who are claiming some ethical violation was made by the administration. But, why do you call the payement in this case a “payoff”?
Obviously Bush wants to stop the bad press on this subject. I think it’s a bit cowardly and reactive. The government produces all kinds of brochures, so why shouldn’t they hire proffessional writers, and experts on the subject, to do it? I can see where you suggestion of government disclosure would be helpful, but it still doesn’t stop the problem of the journalists themsevles failing to disclosing the contracts.
I sure do, and I said so when we had the thread a year or so ago on that subject. But that isn’t the subject of THIS thread.
Did you read the part of the cite right after your quote:
Also, the cite is talking about the Armstrong incident, not the Gallegher incident. Is the GAO investigating the Gallegher incident?
If Congress appropriated the money to promote marriage, having the agency publish articles about it seems like a legitimate activity. Again, I’m not defending the policy (I think it’s a bad one), but the money was appropriated.
I don’t follow. If Gallegher was critical of the president’s program, why would they hire her to help write materials to promote it? And remember, we’re not talking about a news reporter here, we’re talking about an opinion writer. I would certainly agree that the government should not hire news reporters.
I do think it’s bad business practice for an opinion writer to be on the government payroll-- it diminishes her credibility. But that’s between the writer and her bosses, no?