# U.S. government's fake-news propaganda is even more extensive than it appeared **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 14, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497 "2005-03-14T18:49:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/1 "2005-03-14T18:49:08Z")
The Bush Administration already has egg on its face from a few particular incidents of bribing journalists or columnists, or planting fake “journalists,” to propagate its views under the cover of serious journalism. We’ve had several recent GD threads on this: “Republican non-journalist planted at White House press conferences?” > **[Republican non-journalist planted at White House press conferences?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=301738)** > > From the Boston Globe, February 2, 2005, http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2005/02/02/white\_house\_friendly\_reporter\_under\_scrutiny/: What do you think? Is this guy just a fringe conservative blogger who likes to attend White House press... “Let’s debate the value/legitimacy of gov’t propaganda” > **[Let's debate the value/legitimacy of gov't propaganda](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=296757)** > > The Armstrong Williams affair (see http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5183455.html, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington\_story.asp?category=1155&slug=FCC%20Williams,... “Should the Bush Disclose All the Journalists on the Payroll?” > **[Should the Bush Disclose All the Journalists on the Payroll?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=299010)** > > 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... “Is it wrong for the government to control media with payments?” > **[Is it wrong for the government to control media with payments?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=295812)** > > Do you think the government should control aspects of the media by paying journalists to cover what they want? Is this an ethical way for the government to promote programs? What about ethical issues for the journalist? ... But now it appears that the propaganda effort has been even more widespread and systematic than it appeared – and the Clinton Administration did it too, if not on this scale. From the _New York Times,_ 3/13/05 – [Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News - The New York Times](http://nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/13covert.html) (registration required, but free): > [@](#): > > Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government’s role in their production. > > This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration’s efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source. > > Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the “reporters” are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government’s news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration. > > Some reports were produced to support the administration’s most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration’s efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature “interviews” with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy. > > \ > > It is also a world where all participants benefit. > > Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up original material. Public relations firms secure government contracts worth millions of dollars. The major networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional reporting. > > The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush’s recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts. “There needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press,” Mr. Bush told reporters in January, explaining why his administration would no longer pay pundits to support his policies. > > \ > > Yet in three separate opinions in the past year, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that studies the federal government and its expenditures, has held that government-made news segments may constitute improper “covert propaganda” even if their origin is made clear to the television stations. The point, the office said, is whether viewers know the origin. Last month, in its most recent finding, the G.A.O. said federal agencies may not produce prepackaged news reports “that conceal or do not clearly identify for the television viewing audience that the agency was the source of those materials.” > > It is not certain, though, whether the office’s pronouncements will have much practical effect. Although a few federal agencies have stopped making television news segments, others continue. And on Friday, the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget circulated a memorandum instructing all executive branch agencies to ignore the G.A.O. findings. The memorandum said the G.A.O. failed to distinguish between covert propaganda and “purely informational” news segments made by the government. Such informational segments are legal, the memorandum said, whether or not an agency’s role in producing them is disclosed to viewers. Issues for debate: 1. Is this practice, strictly speaking, illegal? 2. Is it, from the government’s point of view, unethical? 3. Is it, from the media’s point of view, unethical? 4. Are there any considerations that might justify the practice? 5. What damage, if any, does it do to our civil society? 6. What share of blame do the media organizations bear for their acquiescence? 7. Can anything be done to stop it? 8. Should anything be done to stop it? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/2 "2005-03-14T19:03:22Z")
It seems there are six stages of guilt in the current administration: “It didn’t happen” - translation: “You can’t prove it happened.” “We stand by what we did.” - translation: “It turns out you can prove it happened.” “We did nothing wrong.” - translation: “Our lawyers tell us we’re okay.” “We did nothing technically wrong.” - translation: “Our lawyers are working overtime.” “We need to move past this.” - translation: “Alright already, we’re guilty.” “Clinton did it.” - translation: “We’re guilty and desperate.” ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/3 "2005-03-14T19:52:45Z")
How many posts will it take for someone to come along with, “Well they have to do something to overcome the bias of the liberal media.”? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/4 "2005-03-14T20:08:14Z")
It serves to further alienate the electorate from its former allies against the government. In the adversarial relationship between the government and the governed a free press was supposed to be a check on the mendacity of politicians. In what appears to be a systematic campaign the alliance between the press and the electorate has been eroded. Now there’s just the electorate and the government and the electorate is gettin’ whupped. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/5 "2005-03-14T20:09:23Z")
IOKIARDI - It’s OK If A Republican Does It. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/6 "2005-03-14T20:11:07Z")
The first and foremost point that I’d like to make is that this is not a new story. Left wing sources have been reporting on, and criticizing, the Bush Administration’s use of these prepackaged news reports to sell its prescription drug plan as early as fall of 2003. This is yet another case of the “mainstream” media only catching on to an important story years after independant sources have reported it. 1. Is this practice, strictly speaking, illegal? It does not appear to be. 1. Is it, from the government’s point of view, unethical? Yes. We sometimes lose track of the fact that the government and the media are supposed to have obligations. While it is impossible for human beings to completely block all traces of their own experiences from influencing how they report things, this revelation clearly shows that both for the government and the media that use the public airwaves, high-level decisions about what to cover (and what not to cover) are made to satisfy political movements, not to keep the public well-informed. 1. Is it, from the media’s point of view, unethical? Yes. See above. 1. Are there any considerations that might justify the practice? None that I can think of. Government agencies should devote effort to creating clear, succinct press releases when they want to communicate with the public, and they should also have well-organized websites, and arrange for their spokespeople to appear on radio and television when necessary. If they did all that, there wouldn’t be any reason for them to try to dupe the public in this manner. 1. What damage, if any, does it do to our civil society? Hopefully less and less as people turn away from mainstream media and start getting their information at least partially from independant sources. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/7 "2005-03-14T20:30:46Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > 1. What damage, if any, does it do to our civil society? > > Hopefully less and less as people turn away from mainstream media and start getting their information at least partially from independant sources. But, as **Sam Stone** has pointed out in other threads, the micro-segmentation of the media also has dangerous tendencies. When we all got our news from the same three TV networks and half-dozen major newspapers, we all had more or less the same picture of the basic facts, even if we disagreed sharply on what conclusions to draw from them. But if you’re getting most of your news from Fox News or the Free Republic, and I’m getting most of mine from _The Nation_ or Democratic Underground, we’re not even living in the same reality any more. How can we have a common civil society under those conditions? ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/8 "2005-03-14T20:40:56Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > How many posts will it take for someone to come along with, “Well they have to do something to overcome the bias of the liberal media.”? 8? [Cite. (Please note: It’s not some blog or holypoopihaveanagenda.org, but an actual cite)](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/14/study_shows_us_election_coverage_harder_on_bush_1110813118/) > [@](#): > > U.S. media coverage of last year’s election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/9 "2005-03-14T21:11:23Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > 8? > > [Cite. (Please note: It’s not some blog or holypoopihaveanagenda.org, but an actual cite)](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/14/study_shows_us_election_coverage_harder_on_bush_1110813118/) That’s in the report, all right, but you are grossly oversimplifying its conclusions (not least, in your unstated assumption that the media hitting one candidate harder than another in a particular election is hard evidence of systemic ideological bias). From the “Content Analysis” section of the Project for Excellence in Journalism Annual Report on American Journalism, 2005 – [http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative\_overview\_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=1:](http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrative_overview_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=1:) > [@](#): > > Two stories dominated the year, the war in Iraq and the election, and both were caught in the maelstrom of debate over media bias. > > The charge that coverage of the situation in Iraq was decidedly negative does not bear up under scrutiny. > > Over all, across all media studied, stories about the war were just slightly more likely to carry a clearly negative tone than a positive one (25% negative versus 20% positive). The majority of stories, however, had no decided tone at all. The largest number, 35%, were neutral, and another 20% were about multiple subjects for which tone did not apply. > > Those findings are based on 16 newspapers, four nightly newscasts, three network morning news shows, nine different cable programs, and nine Web sites examined for four weeks through the course of the year.1 > > Different outlets also varied in their coverage. Newspapers tended to mirror the totals over all. But the three nightly newscasts and PBS tended to be more negative than positive, while network morning news was the reverse. On cable, the news channels themselves varied. Fox was twice as likely to be positive as negative. CNN and MSNBC were more evenly split. > > When it came to the campaign, on the other hand, the criticism that George Bush got worse coverage than John Kerry is supported by the data.2 Looking across all media, campaign coverage that focused on Bush was three times as negative as coverage of Kerry (36% versus 12%) It was also less likely to be positive (20% positive Bush stories, 30% for Kerry). > > That also meant Bush coverage was less likely to be neutral (44% of Bush stories, 58% for Kerry). > > We continue to see significant differences in the nature of the content of different media. On network TV news, for instance, what the viewer gets will depend on the time of day, with mornings and prime-time magazines offering significantly lighter fare than evening news programs. Viewers of PBS will see a different range of concerns from those who watch cable, where entertainment and celebrity are a notable part of the agenda. In magazines, the big new growth area is in publications that concern not public life at all, but shopping. > > Beyond the question of topic agenda, there are also measurable differences in the nature of the reporting in different media, even under the same corporate roof. > > Cable news, for instance, is a more thinly reported medium than its rivals. The story segments include fewer sources, tend to be more one-sided and feature more opinion from the journalists. > > There are also distinct differences among the three cable channels. On Fox News, the journalists themselves offer their opinions, without attribution to any reporting, in seven out of ten stories. That happens in less than one story out of ten on CNN, and in fewer than three stories out of ten on MSNBC. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/10 "2005-03-14T22:34:27Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s in the report, all right, but you are grossly oversimplifying its conclusions… No, I am not. I am quoting the first line of a story in a major newspaper. (By the way, that is a habit you may want to look into; there is no need to quote massive sections of articles all of the time). Nothing in the rest of my cite or your ‘cite’ refutes that first and important line. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/11 "2005-03-14T22:39:50Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Nothing in the rest of my cite or your ‘cite’ refutes that first and important line. No, it does not refute the first line of the newspaper article, but it does refute your citation of the report as evidence of “liberal media bias.” ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/12 "2005-03-14T23:02:29Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. Is this practice, strictly speaking, illegal? Don’t think so. The government does lots of PR, and so far as I know, no one is being forced to run this stuff. > [@](#): > > 1. Is it, from the government’s point of view, unethical? If non-factual, or media outlets are somehow being coerced into running these items, yes. > [@](#): > > 1. Is it, from the media’s point of view, unethical? If not vetted for factual content, and not acknowledged as government-produced, yes. Otherwise, not _per se_ (though it does make me personally uncomfortable). > [@](#): > > 1. Are there any considerations that might justify the practice? Sure, from the standpoint of disseminating factual information. No, if this stuff is presented as propaganda and its source is unacknowledged. > [@](#): > > 1. What damage, if any, does it do to our civil society? No short answer. Makes us gullible fools if we believe everything we see in the media, I guess, but that goes for lots more than government-sourced agitprop. > [@](#): > > 1. What share of blame do the media organizations bear for their acquiescence? Pretty much all the blame, especially so if they are presenting these prepackaged items as their own and not vetting them for accuracy. > [@](#): > > 1. Can anything be done to stop it? Little other than to object loudly to those news organizations that follow such practices. > [@](#): > > 1. Should anything be done to stop it? Legally? Other than a requirement to identify news items as prepackaged, I don’t see anything that wouldn’t cause problems free-speech-wise. ---
**Author:** ![19ForMe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/439d5e/32.png) [@19ForMe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/19ForMe)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/13 "2005-03-14T23:04:43Z")
California has had a similar story going on. The government sends out material to TV stations. The material can be played as a direct news story. It even has a standard script for the anchor to read going into the story. The oposition cries foul. The government’s defense is that it is no different than a press release. Is it no different than a press release? Some print journalists are lazy and will reprint a press release with little vetting. Is it different when a broadcast journalist does the same? Either way, the government is getting its views out by prepackaging a story for the press to distribute. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/14 "2005-03-14T23:08:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, it does not refute the first line of the newspaper article, but it does refute your citation of the report as evidence of “liberal media bias.” From your own cite: (To be fair, I understand how you might have missed it) > [@](#): > > When it came to the campaign, on the other hand, the criticism that George Bush got worse coverage than John Kerry is supported by the data. If the reason for the ‘worse coverage’ isn’t liberal bias within the media, then the reason is…? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2005, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/15 "2005-03-14T23:10:29Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Legally? Other than a requirement to identify news items as prepackaged, I don’t see anything that wouldn’t cause problems free-speech-wise. But even that might be viewed as legislative interference in journalism. > [@19ForMe](#): > > Is it no different than a press release? Some print journalists are lazy and will reprint a press release with little vetting. Is it different when a broadcast journalist does the same? Either way, the government is getting its views out by prepackaging a story for the press to distribute. I was a reporter once. I sometimes included verbatim copy from a press release in an article – but preferably within quote marks, and never without acknowledging the source. Also, press releases are written **as** press releases – the tone is noticeably different from a news report. But these TV clips are deliberately crafted to fool the audience into thinking actual journalists made them. ---
**Author:** ![jeffh3000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/34f0e0/32.png) [@jeffh3000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeffh3000)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/16 "2005-03-15T00:11:33Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, as **Sam Stone** has pointed out in other threads, the micro-segmentation of the media also has dangerous tendencies. When we all got our news from the same three TV networks and half-dozen major newspapers, we all had more or less the same picture of the basic facts, even if we disagreed sharply on what conclusions to draw from them. But if you’re getting most of your news from Fox News or the Free Republic, and I’m getting most of mine from _The Nation_ or Democratic Underground, we’re not even living in the same reality any more. How can we have a common civil society under those conditions? Granted, that the news clearly puts its own spin on the truth, but it always has whether there was 3 sources or hundreds. Doesn’t it seem like the truth would be easier to find in the middle, with more vioces providing the “facts” and details? That is certainly the concept behind a free press. I do certainly agree there is a problem with things such as spin and journalistic integrity. The problem is, what’s the alternative now that this has happened, or how can it be corrected? ---
**Author:** ![jeffh3000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/34f0e0/32.png) [@jeffh3000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeffh3000)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/17 "2005-03-15T00:25:31Z")
> [@ITR champion](#): > > The first and foremost point that I’d like to make is that this is not a new story. Left wing sources have been reporting on, and criticizing, the Bush Administration’s use of these prepackaged news reports to sell its prescription drug plan as early as fall of 2003. This is yet another case of the “mainstream” media only catching on to an important story years after independant sources have reported it. I think that is the thing. This really isn’t news at all as it really isn’t anything remotely new. Is it bad, sure, but the government has been doing this since mass media has been around. I am more shocked by the suprise that some people seem to have regarding this. This is not a secret. Past administrations have done these things, and it will most likely continue in the future. Watch old movie new reels if you have any question in your mind about this. People just always seem to assume that it is “someone else” that is experiencing propraganda, rather than themselves. When something like media has power, someone will always try to control it. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/18 "2005-03-15T01:06:03Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > 8? > > [Cite. (Please note: It’s not some blog or holypoopihaveanagenda.org, but an actual cite)](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/14/study_shows_us_election_coverage_harder_on_bush_1110813118/) Quicker than I thought and by one of the two posters I had in mind. Of course, maybe it was so quick because it was provoked. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/19 "2005-03-15T01:31:08Z")
A note: That simply says there is an anti-George Bush bias in the media. George Bush isn’t conservative, by any means. He seems to favor new government and programs to solve social issues. That they’re pro-abstinence instead of pro-safe sex doesn’t change the lack of conservative values. So… where does that leave us? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2005, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497/20 "2005-03-15T02:36:21Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > A note: That simply says there is an anti-George Bush bias in the media. George Bush isn’t conservative, by any means. He seems to favor new government and programs to solve social issues. That they’re pro-abstinence instead of pro-safe sex doesn’t change the lack of conservative values. Depends on how you define “conservative.” There are several different currents of American “conservative” thought. Bush’s politics are inimical to the libertarian, fiscal-conservative, and isolationist-populist paleoconservative strains – but perfectly in accord with big-business-interest conservativism, social-religious conservatism, and aggressive foreign-policy neoconservatism. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > So… where does that leave us? Same place we were before the election. Fucked. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-s-governments-fake-news-propaganda-is-even-more-extensive-than-it-appeared/294497.md?page=2)