January 28, 2005
Media personalities as shills for the government.
I would expect conservatives to be even more appalled than liberals by the revelations of columnists and commentators on the federal payroll, what with the mantra of small government and states rights and all. Certainly quite a few prominent conservatives have condemned the practice, but the vast majority are keeping mum on the subject. While the obvious conflict of interest is disturbing, I don’t believe these people saw what they were doing as fundamentally dishonest.
They were accepting money to promote programs that they likely supported anyway. If the Green or Libertarian party were to pay me to advocate voting for third parties I wouldn't hesitate for a moment: I'm already doing it, why not get paid for it? Of course, I would disclose the funding.
There have been no instances of what few liberal commentators there are being on the payroll of the federal government. But if the Dems held the White House, it's entirely possible they would have done the same thing.
I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment: I’m already doing it, why not get paid for it? Of course, I would disclose the funding.
Either these commentators weren’t going to “do it”, in which case they’re being dishonest to theier readers, or they were going to “do it”, in which case BushCo is severely wasting our tax dollars.
Likewise, there are two ethical issues. First, not disclosing funding for promoting certain view is the big issue. How can I tell if your opinions are your own, or bought and paid for? Second, it’s illegal to use tax dollars to promote proposed legislation - for good reasons, if you think about it for a little bit.
Posted by: William Cohen at January 28, 2005 05:43 PMWatching C-Span yesterday, representatives of the S.S. Administration testified they were being asked to communicate Republican messages about SS being broke and dead unless voters back Bush’s reform plan. This is far more egregious.
While Americans may not trust political parties or politicians, by and large, they have grown to trust the public servants working in the agency offices conducting themselves and their jobs according to the legislative laws, NOT according to the ruling parties unofficial mandates.
There is no quicker road to revolution than to destroy the trust and faith Americans have in the public servants who mint the money, collect the taxes, and provide government services to the public. Yet, that trust is being broken as political rhetoric no where to be found in law, is being imparted by public servants on behalf of pundits of Republican party.
Posted by: David R Remer at January 28, 2005 05:59 PMrev_matt,
I’ve read somewhere, that Conservative columnist Linda Chavez was upset because she’s being asked if she’s on the Bush administration’s payroll, too. Now with two new revelations, such an injurious pale of lost credibility will further cast a shadow over leading Conservative thinkers/pundits - and I couldn’t be happier!
While dissing the Washington Post for exposing Maggie Gallagher, Bill O’Reilly bestowed absolution upon her, for a simple ‘oversight’. She will always find sanctuary at Fox News, but she just might lose her gig at Universal Press.
The Jason Blair scandal and the Killian memos debacle, both brought severe accountability at so-called Liberal Media outposts, however the documented evidence of lies and deception by the likes of Hannity, Coulter and Micheal Savage, go unchecked.
This is a welcome start.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at January 28, 2005 09:59 PMFrankly, I don’t give a damn. That is why I didn’t write earlier. But since some people have mentioned that us conservatives are conspicuous by our absence, I thought I could explain why.
From what I have read, the journalists in question (Armstrong & Gallagher) didn’t advocate polices they thought were wrong and did not falsify facts to make their cases. I am more interested in the accuracy of the facts than the motivation of authors.
I think it is personally unethical for the journalists involved and I don’t have much respect for them, but I am not outraged. (Of course, easily provoked outrage often indicates a lack of experience or sophistication.) They crossed the line from journalism to advocacy or public relations. Those are honorable professions. The problem is not what the journalists did, it was that they didn’t reveal their motivations.
re Jason Blair. I wasn’t outraged; I just lost all respect for him and some respect for the New York Times. I still read the New York Times, but I suppose I am a little more skeptical. I wouldn’t read anything written by Jason Blair because I just don’t like what he did. What Blair did was worse. His problem was not that he took money. It was that he fabricated facts and lied.
In the case of Dan Rather and the fabricated National Guard documents, I fought very hard to reveal the deception because it was in the middle of an election campaign and the deception could have influenced its outcome. There is no indication that Dan Rather took any money to do what he did and his motivation is not the primary concern. The problem with Rather was in the accuracy of his reporting. He based his conclusions on false documents, so his conclusions were invalid. I was not outraged. I only thought it important to debunk the false information before it could do serious harm.
So let me get to the bottom lines.
In reporting, the most important factor is the accuracy of the information and the soundness of the analysis. Even the nastiest most corrupt and ill motivated individual may produce accurate reports. I have known journalists who were among the most despicable, drunken and spiteful people I have every met or even heard about. Yet they produced good reporting and good analysis. On the other hand, I have met people whose motivations were pure as the driven snow whose work was misleading and erroneous.
It is unethical for individual journalists to take money to advocate particular causes and not reveal it. The key is not the money; it is disclosure. The reason we want to know, however, goes back to the first point. We suspect the money might make them less objective reporters and analysts. It is possible that a paid lobbyist might produce the best analysis and reporting. We just like to know.
There is ample reason for concern in the cases above, but not for outrage. Most liberal groups and NGOs depend to some extent on funds provided by governments. They advocate policies that ensure the continued funding for their operations. Have you ever heard of a pressure group that said, “it was a serious problem, but we have now solved and so don’t give us any more money.” This form of corruption is similar to what Armstrong did. Just a little less direct.
Posted by: jack at January 28, 2005 11:31 PMI should point out that if any Democratic Administration would have done this, it would have been Clinton’s. The fact that they did not proves that even Liberals have lines they do not cross. Unlike Republicans you routinely call Veterans Bin Ladin Supporters and Cowards.
Jack:
The Dan Rather Scandal failed due to lack of Background Checks and time constraints. CBS simply rushed the story. This is completely different from the corrupt Republican Media who TEACHES Journalistic Ethics in one hand while selling out in the other. Make no mistake, they KNOW they were doing something illegal. Two of the people involved wrote books about Ethics for crying out loud!!! But then again, what do you expect for Republicans?
