Should the Bush Disclose All the Journalists on the Payroll?

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

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.

No wriggling necessary. I already quoted to setion of your cite that clearly outlines the source of the ambiguity. That quote was, in point of fact, exactly where your original quote left off, and was clearly offered in the cite as an important follow-on point. Here it is again:

It prohibits expenditures for all unauthorized publicity or propaganda. Unfortunately, as with most of the publicity and propaganda statutes over the years, there is no definition of either term. Thus, the statutes have been applied through administrative interpretation.

And here’s more, from the same cite, seemingly cautioning us against exactly what you are doing-- jumping to a conclusion.

In evaluating whether a given action violates a publicity or propaganda provision, GAO will rely heavily on the agency’s administrative justification. In other words, the agency gets the benefit of any legitimate doubt.

Moral of the story: it depends on the circumstances. It is not, as you imply, clearly illegal across the board. Although I’m not too familiar with the Williams case, that seems like it could well be illegal-- if it represents a payment to provide an indefinate, or ongoing amount of plugging under the byline of the journalist. The Gallagher case, however, seems clearly legal-- she was contracted to provide a service to an agency specifically charterd to advocate public policy, ie, the promotion of marriage.

[rjung]

The depressing truth is that I suspect most Americans won’t care that portions of their “independent” media are simply mouthpieces for the President and his policies – after all, they’ve put up with Fox News for so long, what’s another “independent” commentator or three?

[ElvisL1ves]

@ElvisL1ves

If you see a way to wriggle out of such a determination, you haven’t even hinted that there is one.

Congratulations on finding a little potential wriggle room. Bush’s ethicality is once again vindicated. :rolleyes:

@John Mace

Moral of the story: it depends on the circumstances. It is not, as you imply, clearly illegal across the board.

That in response to the agency getting the benefit of any “legitimate doubt”. Apparently you can show us some of that?

[BrainGlutton]

@manhattan

No, they shouldn’t disclose it any more or less than they disclose other government contracts.

But shouldn’t all government contracts be disclosed, except when there is some genuine national-security reason for keeping them secret?

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

And again, we’re talking about editorial writers, not new reporters.

A distinction the right-wing media moguls have been systematically working to erase for decades now. See The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock (2004).

[BrainGlutton]

@John Mace

Nice little strawman. We’re talking about disclosure of who was hired, not on how much money was spent.

And why is the one any less the public’s business than the other?

[BrainGlutton]

@Evil Captor

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 it is unreasonable that we should even have to ask. In such a situation, there should be no point in asking because the Admin should already have published the relationship, by the usual press-release channels and on its own initiative, as soon as the deal was struck.

[capacitor]

Damn, why do Republicans tout, but never learn from, the wisdom of Reagan, who once said out loud , ‘I paid for this microphone, mister!’

[Evil_Captor]

@BrainGlutton

I think it is unreasonable that we should even have to ask. In such a situation, there should be no point in asking because the Admin should already have published the relationship, by the usual press-release channels and on its own initiative, as soon as the deal was struck.

I agree with you, we shouldn’t have to ask, but given the facts in evidence, it’s obvious that we do have to ask. Plus, of course, it’ll be fun to make the bastards squirm and act indignant. I wish one of the moderate or leftish TV pundits would have the balls to make such a request of an opposition figure during a talk show, but balls aren’t much in evidence on the TV left, such as it is, these days.

[manhattan]

@BrainGlutton

But shouldn’t all government contracts be disclosed, except when there is some genuine national-security reason for keeping them secret?

Yes, which is why I said no more or less than other government contracts. There should be a “big pile 'o consulting contracts” at each agency so that the public can go through them and look for conflicts, nepotism, favortism, and all the other ugly stuff that governments do (and businesses, but they’re not doing it on the public nickle). But the government shouldn’t make some special effort to publicize more those contracts which might have been let to journalists or pundits.

In cases where the government is paying for coverage, that’s illegal on its own merits and ought not to be done at all. But what about the Gallagher contract? It was basically a speechwriting gig. Anyone who has spent enough time with bureaucrats will concede that maybe having their speeches ghostwritten ain’t such a bad idea. So who do they hire? It might be an ex-employee who has gone out on his/her own, an expert of some sort, or a professional writer on the subject like Gallagher. But I don’t want the government pretending to know how to identify a pundit from a not-pundit, especially in this age of decentralized media. Is someone who just has a blog a pundit? What about a blog and two or three published pieces in opinion journals? What if the opinion journals didn’t pay for the piece and just gave exposure? How about an activist? Would an activist who testified before Congress and raised money for a cause and oh-by-the-way got to opine once on the editorial page of the New York Times be subect to these special disclosure rules? Again, I think the onus for special disclosure in these cases (the legal ones) falls on the person doing the work. If they fail to disclose it and it eventually comes out because some diligent person goes through the “big pile 'o consulting contracts” then so be it.