# Should the Bush Disclose All the Journalists on the Payroll? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 26, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792 "2005-01-26T18:08:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/21 "2005-01-27T01:48:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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? Do you also believe that the only person who holds any moral culpability for an adulterous affair between a married and an unmarried person is the married person? Not that that’s analoguous, given that Bush is also a metaphorical married person in this situation. He’s metaphorically married to us, and even if our mutual wedding vows didn’t include “forsaking all others”, an affair that’s kept secret because we might disapprove of the situation is still immoral. Boy, I really flogged that metaphor to pieces, didn’t I? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/22 "2005-01-27T02:15:47Z")
**jayjay** : I’m a guy, so I don’t think Bush’s policies would allow him to be married to me. 🙂 As for your actual question, I think \*\*manny \*\*answered it well in his frist post to this thread. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/23 "2005-01-27T17:01:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > the Gallegher incident. Is the GAO investigating the Gallegher incident? It just came up. Check back in a few days. > [@](#): > > 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? No, her credibility issue is between her and her _readers_. But they’re small fry and don’t really matter. The government that works for us matters. You’re not looking at both sides, anyway - Williams and Gallagher took the money, sure, but where did it come from? Right, Bush Administration agencies spending taxpayer money. Yours and mine. If the position being advocated can stand on its own, it’s certainly aboveboard to publicize it. If it requires subterfuge to see the light of day, falsely presenting the image of it being the result of grassroots demand, it’s certainly wrong under the principle of false advertising, and the GAO for all of its failings says it’s illegal, too. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/24 "2005-01-27T17:10:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You’re not looking at both sides, anyway - Williams and Gallagher took the money, sure, but where did it come from? Right, Bush Administration agencies spending taxpayer money. Yours and mine. If the position being advocated can stand on its own, it’s certainly aboveboard to publicize it. If it requires subterfuge to see the light of day, falsely presenting the image of it being the result of grassroots demand, it’s certainly wrong under the principle of false advertising, and the GAO for all of its failings says it’s illegal, too. I didn’t follow the Armstrong Williams case, but in the Gallegher case I don’t see the subterfuge. She was hired for a specific purpose and that was it. You may think she felt a continuing obligation to promote the adminstration’s position in her other writings, and it might have the apperance of a conflict of interest, but there isn’t any hard evidence to support the claim of subterfuge. It seem silly to say that the government can NEVER hire someone who has written an opinion piece-- that probably rules out a huge percent of all academics who have made a name for themself. If Bush wants to set that as his policy, that his choice. As for the GAO claiming this is illegal, where do you get that? I didn’t see that in your cite, only that issues are being raised. If this is illegal, who has been or is going to be prosecuted? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/25 "2005-01-28T05:51:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. Well, you could argue that the government is being dishonest with the people in a new way and that this demonstrates a lack of respect for the idea of a free press and its place in democracy. But overall I think you’re right. As a journalist I’m disgusted by Williams and Gallagher and they should be ashamed of themselves. I’m sure they’re not, since by doing this in the first place they proved that they don’t have, and aren’t worried about, things like integrity. But they oughta be, darnit. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/26 "2005-01-28T06:11:43Z")
I think you guys should go back and read what you wrote in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275842). Seems like you had no problem when it was Democrats mixing journalism and politics. Granted, this case is a bit different in that it involves the sitting government, but I still see it as a journalism problem rather than a governmental/poltical one. And again, we’re talking about editorial writers, not new reporters. I don’t think anyone would sanction this sort of activity for the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/27 "2005-01-28T06:13:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > 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. What a fantastic libertarian principle: the government doesn’t have to tell us when it spend OUR money to tell us what to think! ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/28 "2005-01-28T06:15:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I think you guys should go back and read what you wrote in [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275842). Seems like you had no problem when it was Democrats mixing journalism and politics. I said I didn’t like it but that it was expected, so I think I’m good. And maybe most significantly there are no disclosure issues there. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/29 "2005-01-28T06:17:26Z")
> [@Apos](#): > > What a fantastic libertarian principle: the government doesn’t have to tell us when it spend OUR money to tell us what to think! Nice little strawman. We’re talking about disclosure of who was hired, not on how much money was spent. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/30 "2005-01-28T12:32:23Z")
Is this a third case? From [Salon.com](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/27/mcmanus/index_np.html) > [@](#): > > 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. If so, this guy was getting bus fare, a meager $10,000. And he appears to be third or fourth rate anyways. Perhaps this is how you foster a grassroots movement. Funny that part of his expertise is “ethics.” ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/31 "2005-01-28T13:48:49Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Seems like you had no problem when it was Democrats mixing journalism and politics. Granted, this case is a bit different in that it involves the sitting government, but I still see it as a journalism problem rather than a governmental/poltical one. > [@](#): > > We’re talking about disclosure of who was hired, not on how much money was spent. No, my friend, you’re still not getting it for some reason. The problem is _taxpayer money_, and how it’s spent. In these (still-increasing) cases, it’s being spent for political advocacy, of a kind the GAO terms “covert propaganda”. That was not an issue with the Carville/Kerry situation, where every dollar involved was the participants’ own - and, as you yourself put it: > [@John Mace](#): > > And again, we’re talking about editorial writers, not new reporters. Be careful with those “strawman” accusations, okay? > [@](#): > > As for the GAO claiming this is illegal, where do you get that? From it being a violation of federal regs, as cited and quoted. ---
**Author:** ![marky33](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@marky33](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marky33)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/32 "2005-01-28T14:07:36Z")
The Hong Kong government is even less subtle – it just demands that newspapers print its statements, unedited and uncommented upon. [Not all do](http://www.thestandard.com.hk/stdn/std/Opinion/GA27Df01.html), though. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/33 "2005-01-28T14:43:14Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > 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. But did Bush or his minions dream it up? Perhaps this has been going on for decades. ---
**Author:** ![Danalan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/76d3ee/32.png) [@Danalan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danalan)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/34 "2005-01-28T15:04:33Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > But did Bush or his minions dream it up? Perhaps this has been going on for decades. So that makes it ethical? Are you going to try and blame this CLEARLY ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL practice on Clinton? Tax dollars spent to advocate anti-homosexual, conservative christian propaganda is just one of the evil acts of this corrupt administration. It’s not even the most egregious thing they’ve done. But saying ‘everyones doing it’ didn’t work with my mother, and isn’t a valid excuse for government officials in any way. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/35 "2005-01-28T16:15:06Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > From it being a violation of federal regs, as cited and quoted. Again, can you show me exactly where in your cite it says that? I read the whole thing and the sense I get is: “we’re still trying to find out if this is illegal or not.” Can you quote the exact portion of that cite where it says that the GAO has determined that the expenditures in either the Armstrong or Gallagher incident are illegal? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/36 "2005-01-28T16:58:51Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Again, can you show me exactly where in your cite it says that? I read the whole thing and the sense I get is: “we’re still trying to find out if this is illegal or not.” Can you quote the exact portion of that cite where it says that the GAO has determined that the expenditures in either the Armstrong or Gallagher incident are illegal? So it’s basically a matter of “no controlling legal authority,” then, hm? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/37 "2005-01-28T17:04:04Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Can you quote the exact portion of that cite where it says that the GAO has determined that the expenditures in either the Armstrong or Gallagher incident are illegal? For pity’s sake. Both cases _just came up_. There would not \*be \* a determination yet. Your demand for one is simply silly. I posted a link to the applicable regs. You can see for yourself what applies. I even excerpted the key grafs for you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/38 "2005-01-28T17:18:05Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > For pity’s sake. Both cases _just came up_. There would not \*be \* a determination yet. Your demand for one is simply silly. Silly? My request was based on your statement that the GAO had already made the determination. Are you now saying you misspoke when you posted this: > [@Elvis](#): > > …the GAO for all of its failings says it’s illegal… Did you mean to say that the GAO thinks it might be illegal? If so, then I can agree with you. Your original post, though, is factually inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/39 "2005-01-28T18:47:47Z")
From now on, whenever a commentator supports an administration program or position, I feel it is perfectly reasonable and fair to ask them: “Are you getting paid by the Administration to advocate this, and if so, how much?” I think every commentator who supports Administration policies should recieve LOTS and LOTS of letters and emails to that effect. And I bet they will. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792/40 "2005-01-28T19:05:30Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Are you now saying you misspoke when you posted this: One might have thought it obvious. One should not make such assummptions in GD, however. That’s my error. I already cited GAO regs that cover this situation to the extent that any \*reasonable \* person would recognize apply to both cases that have come up. If you see a way to wriggle out of such a determination, you haven’t even hinted that there is one. Nor, for that matter, have any of the Usual Apologists, despite the fact that the most determined of them has flatly asserted that there’s “nothing wrong” with it. Leave the pettifoggery to the experts, okay? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-bush-disclose-all-the-journalists-on-the-payroll/286792.md?page=3)