Quote :

"Administration Rejects Ruling On PR Videos GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda By Christopher Lee Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A21 The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them. That message, in memos sent Friday to federal agency heads and general counsels, contradicts a Feb. 17 memo from Comptroller General David M. Walker. Walker wrote that such stories -- designed to resemble independently reported broadcast news stories so that TV stations can run them without editing -- violate provisions in annual appropriations laws that ban covert propaganda. OMB's Joshua B. Bolten: Justice, not GAO, interprets law. But Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department, said in memos last week that the administration disagrees with the GAO's ruling. And, in any case, they wrote, the department's Office of Legal Counsel, not the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, provides binding legal interpretations for federal agencies to follow. The legal counsel's office "does not agree with GAO that the covert propaganda prohibition applies simply because an agency's role in producing and disseminating information is undisclosed or 'covert,' regardless of whether the content of the message is 'propaganda,' " Bradbury wrote. "Our view is that the prohibition does not apply where there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint, and therefore it does not apply to the legitimate provision of information concerning the programs administered by an agency." The existence of the memos was reported Sunday by the New York Times. Supporters say prepackaged news stories are a common public relations tool with roots in previous administrations, that their exterior packaging typically identifies the government as the source, and that it is up to news organizations, not the government, to reveal to viewers where the material they broadcast came from. Critics have derided such video news releases as taxpayer-financed attempts by the administration to promote its policies in the guise of independent news reports. Within the last year, the GAO has rapped the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of National Drug Control Policy for distributing such stories about the Medicare drug benefit and the administration's anti-drug campaign, respectively. In an interview yesterday, Walker said the administration's approach is both contrary to appropriations law and unethical. "This is more than a legal issue. It's also an ethical issue and involves important good government principles, namely the need for openness in connection with government activities and expenditures," Walker said. "We should not just be seeking to do what's arguably legal. We should be doing what's right." White House spokesman Scott McClellan said yesterday that federal agencies have used video news releases for years. "As long as they are providing factual information, it's okay," he said. Walker said that even by that standard, some prepackaged news stories are out of bounds. "Congress has got to settle it -- either Congress or the courts," Walker said. "Congress may need to provide additional guidance with regard to their intent in this overall area." Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said through a spokesman yesterday that he will try to attach language to an appropriations bill to clarify that taxpayer money cannot be spent on such productions. He and fellow Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) wrote to President Bush yesterday asking him to pull back the new memos from Justice and the OMB. They noted that following revelations this year that the Education Department had paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind law, Bush had directed agencies to abandon such clandestine public relations practices. "Whether in the form of a payment to an actual journalist, or through the creation of a fake one, it is wrong to deceive the public with the creation of phony news stories," the lawmakers wrote. "

Quote :

"Administration Paid Commentator Education Dept. Used Williams to Promote 'No Child' Law By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, January 8, 2005; Page A01 The Education Department paid commentator Armstrong Williams $241,000 to help promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind law on the air, an arrangement that Williams acknowledged yesterday involved "bad judgment" on his part. In taking the money, funneled through the Ketchum Inc. public relations firm, Williams produced and aired a commercial on his syndicated television and radio shows featuring Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige, touted Bush's education policy, and urged other programs to interview Paige. He did not disclose the contract when talking about the law during cable television appearances or writing about it in his newspaper column. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56330-2005Jan7.html

Quote :

"Scathing Report On Human Rights In Afghanistan Released # VIDEO: Dana Kozlov reports. Apr 25, 2005 9:44 pm US/Central CHICAGO (CBS 2) A report on human rights in Afghanistan has just been released. It is scathing in its criticism of the way many people are treated in Afghan prisons by coalition forces. The DePaul professor who wrote the report had to do so without the full cooperation of the American military. Eighteen thousand US troops are still in Afghanistan fighting the Bush administration's war on terror. One Chicago human rights expert commissioned by the United Nations to investigate conditions there says things have improved, but there are still serious human rights violations. Especially among women, children and in Afghani and US-run prisons. "There are a lot of allegations of people who have been tortured and mistreated,” Report author M. Cherif Bassiouni says, “at the hands of coalition forces. And the military is quite concerned its reputation will be tarnished." Professor Bassiouni says the military didn't allow him into US facilities but he talked to dozens of people about their experiences. He did tour several Afghani-run prisons where Bassiouni says he saw people kept in shackles and imprisoned in underground cages. When asked if treatment in US facilities could be compared to those at Abu Ghraib -- the now-infamous Iraqi prison -- Bassiouni says there's only one way to be sure. “We hear a lot of stories that are very disturbing and the better way of putting these stories to rest is by transparency. And when the US government is sort of stonewalling it, it doesn't really do much good for the US," he says. "Basically what needs to change is the US needs to recognize the applications of the Geneva Convention because one of these days our troops are going to be taken prisoners by somebody else and we would not want them to be tortured or mistreated as we are treating these people." These are obviously strong, serious allegations and unnamed government officials have been quoted as accusing professor Bassiouni of grandstanding. After he released his report, Bassiouni says the post of independent expert was not renewed by the UN at the request of the US government. We attempted to get comments from the White House and state republicans, without success. We'll keep trying. Expect to hear more about this."

http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_115224614.html

4/27/2005 12:48:18 AM

you need to include at least a couple lines of your own opinion or i am gonna write you off as just another bot

4/27/2005 12:49:24 AM

Just wanted to create a repository of the Karl "Goebbels" Rove propoganda.

4/27/2005 12:51:27 AM

Summary, plz?

4/27/2005 1:04:14 AM

Traitor!, report to Re-education immediatly!

4/27/2005 1:09:53 AM

1. Bush administration creates news videos and tv stations broadcast them. [without citing the source]

2. Administration pays commentator $241,000 to help promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind law on the air.

3. Bush has United Nation's investigative postion eliminated when reports surface about U.S. human rights abuses.

4. Bush administration officials commit treason by leaking information to Robert Novak who names an undercover CIA operative, Valerie Plame. Bush-Rove's retribution on her husband, Joseph Wilson.
Wilson, a former ambassador to Niger in 2002 to investigate, and he had reported back that Baghdad hadn't purchased uranium yellowcake, which can be used to develop enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

5. Jeff Gannon, a White House plant, poses as a reporter to ask softball questions during press conferences.

4/27/2005 1:26:49 AM

Apparently it was okay when the Clinton administration did it; why all the fuss now?

4/27/2005 2:12:41 AM

Quote :

"Apparently it was okay when the Clinton administration did it; why all the fuss now?"

Can you back that statement up, and cite sources?

4/27/2005 2:42:32 AM

you know, only #3 and #4 are explicitly illegal. I don't see a problem w/ the gov't giving news agencies stories, as long as it doesn't force or coerce the agency to report the story. This is just a typical example of reactionary partisan legislation.

4/27/2005 7:33:55 AM

i have to say i actually agree, it shouldn't be illegal for a news agency to accept government propaganda, and it shouldn't be illegal for them to show it without citing sources. it fuckign sucks, and all journalistic ethics should tell them to cite the source, and it's frightening that they show them without citing the source, but nonetheless, it shouldn't be illegal.

4/27/2005 8:31:33 AM

Quote :

"Summary, plz?"

Joke:
"Doctor, my brother thinks he's a chicken."
"That's silly. Just tell him he's not a chicken."
"I would, but we need the eggs."

Bush has hates the press. He has held fewer press conferences than any modern president. The problem is that without the press he can't get his message out. So, his solution is to raise his own chickens - to create news stories and pass them off as independent news.

The Question is whether is the public has to be told that the news is from government chickens. The Government Accountability Office says yes, because there is a appropiations ban on covert propaganda. The administration's Justice Deparment says no, because news is not propaganda if it doesn't advocate a particular viewpoint.

The obvious question is, why bother to create your own news stories if you don't want to advocate your viewpoint? It's as transparent as a lace nightie ...

4/27/2005 9:13:54 AM

Quote :

"So, his solution is to raise his own chickens - to create news stories and pass them off as independent news. "

That's everyone's solution.

Why do you think press releases exist?

Everyone wants the story written in teh most positive light for them. It's the news agency who either runs the release, runs an edited version of the release, or changes it all together. This is for any person, group or organization. The ultimate executor of the story is the news outlet. Plain and simple.

4/27/2005 9:16:32 AM

"Liberal media" is a myth.

4/27/2005 9:17:06 AM

^ explain.

4/27/2005 9:34:06 AM

^ it doesnt exist, its a fabrication created by conservatives.

4/27/2005 9:50:50 AM

yaaaa a five year old Fox news cable channel does not erase 40 years of liberal dominated newspaper, network, and cable news outlets

but nice try

4/27/2005 9:55:15 AM

^ well i guess the corporate control of all major forms of media in the US is just a technacality.

4/27/2005 9:59:08 AM

#3, #4, and #5 are accusations. I have seen no evidence, only conspiracy theories.

As for #1 and #2, that should be perfectly legal. As long as you are free to publish whatever you want so should the FDA.

Quote :

"^ well i guess the corporate control of all major forms of media in the US is just a technacality."

You are joking, right? This statement is like complaining that all corporations are headed by human beings, it goes without saying. Our socio-economic system is based on the independent business entity, sole-proprietorship or common-stock, whatever. If a major form of media was not under the control of some business entity then I would be shocked and dismayed.

[Edited on April 27, 2005 at 10:09 AM. Reason : ^]

4/27/2005 10:05:08 AM

I've yet to hear some debunk this widely held "liberal media myth."

4/27/2005 10:05:11 AM

Quote :

"That's everyone's solution. Why do you think press releases exist?"

With press releases everyone knows where the release comes from. Imagine a press release disguised as a news story, without mentioning it's been put out by the company involved.

I agree that reputable news sources cite their sources ... but what about unreputable ones?

The real question is, why doesn't the government doesn't want to idenify itself. What is the problem? This is propaganda at it's finest, pure and simple.

4/27/2005 10:12:07 AM

Quote :

"With press releases everyone knows where the release comes from. Imagine a press release disguised as a news story, without mentioning it's been put out by the company involved. "

Um, I've read many many many many "news reports" that were just press releases with the reporter's comentary tacked on to the end, and no mention of the source. Didn't even realize it was a press release until I read it somewhere else.

Quote :

"I agree that reputable news sources cite their sources ... but what about unreputable ones? "

What are you doing reading and/or trusting unreputable news sources?

Quote :

"The real question is, why doesn't the government doesn't want to idenify itself. What is the problem? This is propaganda at it's finest, pure and simple."

Where in these press releases does it say "DO NOT REPORT THE SOURCE OF THIS RELEASE OR YOU WILL DIE!" ?

The lack of source reporting is a CHOICE made by the journalists too lazy to write their own work.

4/27/2005 10:36:52 AM

Quote :

"By Christopher Lee, Washington Post Staff Writer"

What were you saying about credible sources, pryderi?

4/27/2005 10:39:27 AM

THE NIGGA BOUGHT YELLOW CAKE!!!

4/27/2005 10:56:40 AM

Quote :

"The real question is, why doesn't the government doesn't want to idenify itself. What is the problem?"

4/27/2005 10:58:37 AM

Again, where does the government prevent people from identifying the source? If the source isn't identified, that's the reporter's problem.

4/27/2005 12:03:41 PM

4/27/2005 12:19:18 PM

You know, I could swear that just the other day I heard someone else in the Soap Box making a 1984 reference...now who could that be...hmm...

4/27/2005 12:25:06 PM

wait, where is the evidence for the liberal media bias?

4/27/2005 12:50:30 PM

where is the evidence against liberal bias?

Quote :

"but what about unreputable ones? "

you know what you do then? you as an individual or PAC talk to those networks/news sources and tell them to be more reputable. Once again, don't punish the law abiding and ethical majority for the iniquities of the few.

4/27/2005 1:54:50 PM

i believe everything is concidered neutral untill evidence is brought forward that proves it wrong.

4/27/2005 2:18:21 PM

Quote :

"I've yet to hear some debunk this widely held "liberal media myth.""

i'd suggest some books but youd just write them off as liberal bias

4/27/2005 2:19:28 PM

Question:
The real question is, why doesn't the government doesn't want to idenify itself. What is the problem?"

Answer:
Again, where does the government prevent people from identifying the source? If the source isn't identified, that's the reporter's problem.

Unfortunately, it's not an answer to the question I asked ...

4/27/2005 2:45:11 PM

Yes it is. The government isn't doing anything to prevent themselves from being identified, so the government' doesn't "want" anything except to promote their pet projects.

4/27/2005 2:47:48 PM

Quote :

"The government isn't doing anything to prevent themselves from being identified ..."

They do everything but identify themselves ... why dont' they just do it?

4/27/2005 4:12:18 PM

Quote :

""I admit it -- the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." William Kristol, as reported by the New Yorker, 5/22/95"

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

4/27/2005 4:17:24 PM

Quote :

"They do everything but identify themselves ... why dont' they just do it?"

And yet people still know it comes from the government. Would it really make that much of a difference if it was shipped on letter head that said "From the desk of GW Bush, printed on Oil based paper and written in ink made of the blood of brown people"?

4/27/2005 4:35:14 PM

Quote :

"And yet people still know it comes from the government"

No, people don't know it comes from the government. That is the point. They are trying to disguise exatly that fact. They dress people up as reporters and make spots that can be inserted into news programing formats unedited. They intentionally try to hide where it comes from, to increase their credibility. If that's not "covert propaganda", what is?

4/27/2005 6:28:04 PM

"Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged News" New York Times, March 13, 2005.

Quote :

" 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. "

Again, if it's okay for Clinton to do it, why all the fuss now?

You may call Bush a hypocrite, but this is definitely not police state material.

4/27/2005 9:31:07 PM

Just let him be. He'll start with the, "War is peace, slavery is freedom" rambling here presently.

4/27/2005 9:50:15 PM

I'd be against it for Clinton too ...

Quote :

"Bush ... explaining why his administration would no longer pay pundits to support his policies."

4/27/2005 9:58:31 PM

Quote :

"i have to say i actually agree, it shouldn't be illegal for a news agency to accept government propaganda, and it shouldn't be illegal for them to show it without citing sources. it fuckign sucks, and all journalistic ethics should tell them to cite the source, and it's frightening that they show them without citing the source, but nonetheless, it shouldn't be illegal."

Agreed. It is, however, perfectly reasonable to make it illegal for the government to feed "news" to media outlets. So long as we agree the government works for us, it is in our interest to not to have someone we employ bribe someone we rely on for evaluations of the employee's performance.

4/27/2005 10:04:08 PM

Anyone notice how the Republicans have backed off using the phrase, "Nuclear Option" and are now saying "Constitutional Option"?

First the Republicans [Trent Lott] started using the phrase, then when focus groups didn't like the
image the phrase conjured, so now they claim the Democrats cooked up the phrase.

Sounds just like what they did with their own "Schiavo Memo".


[Edited on April 28, 2005 at 2:28 PM. Reason : grp]

4/28/2005 2:26:32 PM

From the "liberal media", NY Times:

Quote :

"Democrats call this the nuclear option, while Republicans call this a constitutional option."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/politics/22cnd-judge.html?hp&ex=1114228800&en=047f685e7c2e24a4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

4/28/2005 2:31:13 PM

Quote :

"It is, however, perfectly reasonable to make it illegal for the government to feed "news" to media outlets."

Aren't government press conferences feeding the media news?

4/28/2005 2:46:30 PM

^^^ more on that here http://mediamatters.org/items/search/200504260001

^ you know that's not what he means.

4/28/2005 3:26:05 PM

I'm just curious as to where exactly the line should be drawn.

4/28/2005 3:36:02 PM

Yeah...Bush has soooo many news conferences....

[Edited on April 28, 2005 at 3:42 PM. Reason : =]

4/28/2005 3:42:04 PM

Quote :

"Another Journalist Got Bush Administration Payola By E&P Staff Published: May 11, 2005 12:50 PM ET NEW YORK Another federal agency has admitted to paying a journalist -- this time, a magazine writer. The Department of Agriculture gave freelancer Dave Smith $9,375 in 2003 to "research and write articles for hunting and fishing magazines describing the benefits of NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] programs," according to a USA Today story. Smith's articles appeared in "Outdoor Oklahoma" and "Washington-Oregon Game & Fish" -- neither of which identified the writer as being government-paid. Earlier this year, it was revealed that the federal Department of Education paid syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams, and that the federal Department of Health and Human Services paid syndicated columnists Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus.""

Ellsworth Toohey would be proud.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000918871

5/11/2005 7:10:34 PM

FINALY 1984 IS HERE


just 21 years late

not a bad estimate, gg orwell

5/11/2005 8:39:50 PM

Oh horrors. The government paid somene to write some articles for outdoors type people about a 70 year old government program to conserve the outdoors. HORROR!!!!!!!!

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/

5/12/2005 12:52:12 AM