I havent heard much about this maybe someone can explain it ...

[Spider]

Armstrong Williams on the white house payroll .... How many other right wing pundits are on the take ?

[alkemical]

my news thread has stuff about this in there -

there is a new bill that congress is trying to pass on gov't sponsored propoganda, but it only is applicable to the executive branch. the 1/27 posting has that article in there on it.

[Rascal]

I think its crap...in that it shouldn't be done but it's done on both sides of the isle.

Hopefully the bill mentioned by amesj will eliminate all forms of political propoganda especially by the executive branch...although the legislative needs it as well. I say legislative because that is where our Presidents usually come from (or candidates right Kerry) and they shouldn't be allowed to have their own propoganda crap going on against the President before they decide to run and this is applicable to both sides.

I would like to think Bush didn't know about it, because it is pretty stupid, but guaranteed somebody did in the cabinet. Hopefully this puts the end to a dirty political maneuver. And yes Clinton did it as well so shut up.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by rascal

Hopefully this puts the end to a dirty political maneuver. And yes Clinton did it as well so shut up.

I am not saying Clinton didnt do it , but could you tell me when and by whom ?

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by rascal

I think its crap...in that it shouldn't be done but it's done on both sides of the isle.

Hopefully the bill mentioned by amesj will eliminate all forms of political propoganda especially by the executive branch...although the legislative needs it as well. I say legislative because that is where our Presidents usually come from (or candidates right Kerry) and they shouldn't be allowed to have their own propoganda crap going on against the President before they decide to run and this is applicable to both sides.

I would like to think Bush didn't know about it, because it is pretty stupid, but guaranteed somebody did in the cabinet. Hopefully this puts the end to a dirty political maneuver. And yes Clinton did it as well so shut up.

I agree rascal. I noted that it only applied to the exec. branch because what's to stop our congressmen from taking our tax dollars and pushing out the same crap to us?

This is just a farce like the campaign finance reform:


(article linked by demand)
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000778976

Sens. to Introduce 'Stop Government Propaganda Act'

NEW YORK In response to continued revelations of government-funded "journalism" -- ranging from the purported video news releases put out by the drug czar's office and the Department of Health and Human Services to the recently uncovered payments to columnists Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher,who flacked administration programs -- Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce a bill, The Stop Government Propaganda Act, in the Senate next week.

"It's just not enough to say, 'Please don't do it anymore,'" Alex Formuzis, Lautenberg's spokesman, told E&P. "Legislation sometimes is required and we believe it is in this case."

The Stop Government Propaganda Act states, "Funds appropriated to an Executive branch agency may not be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless authorized by law."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I am not saying Clinton didnt do it , but could you tell me when and by whom ?

What?

Rascal wasn't able to give you an example?

Why, who woulda thunk?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Armstrong Williams on the white house payroll .... How many other right wing pundits are on the take ?

Funny you should ask...

Payola scandal widens: 3rd Bush Pusher on the take

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.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Senators to Introduce 'Stop Government Propaganda' Act

NEW YORK In response to continued revelations of government-funded "journalism" -- ranging from the purported video news releases put out by the drug czar's office and the Department of Health and Human Services to the recently uncovered payments to columnists Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher,who flacked administration programs -- Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce a bill, The Stop Government Propaganda Act, in the Senate next week.

"It's just not enough to say, 'Please don't do it anymore,'" Alex Formuzis, Lautenberg's spokesman, told E&P. "Legislation sometimes is required and we believe it is in this case."

The Stop Government Propaganda Act states, "Funds appropriated to an Executive branch agency may not be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States unless authorized by law."

"It's time for Congress to shut down the Administration's propaganda mill," Lautenberg said in a statement. "It has no place in the United States Government." The bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Jon Corzine (D-N.J.).

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000778976

[alkemical]

did anyone else just get confirmation that labf didn't read the thread, since he just posted what i posted?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by amesj523

did anyone else just get confirmation that labf didn't read the thread, since he just posted what i posted?

Ooops - my bad.

Didn't see your post.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Ooops - my bad.

Didn't see your post.

just giving you ****

You gots to slow down when you eat, chew chew chew!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by amesj523

just giving you ****

You gots to slow down when you eat, chew chew chew!

I must've missed it because it was tacked onto the end of your message and because I'm used to seeing headlines in bold.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

Armstrong Williams on the white house payroll .... How many other right wing pundits are on the take ?

All of 'em!

From the "Heads I win - Tails you lose" BushCo playbook, wherein their masterful framing of the issues creates nothing but win-win scenarios for themselves (and, consequently, lose-lose scenarios for the reality-based community.)

This excerpt from Noam Chomsky's book "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies" explains the situation quite well:

"To confront power is costly and difficult; high standards of evidence and argument are imposed, and critical analysis is naturally not welcomed by those who are in a position to react vigorously and to determine the array of rewards and punishments. Conformity to a "patriotic agenda," in contrast, imposes no such costs. Charges against official enemies barely require substantiation; they are, furthermore, protected from correction, which can be dismissed as apologetics for the criminals or as missing the forest for the trees. The system protects itself with indignation against a challenge to the right of deceit in the service of power, and the very idea of subjecting the ideological system to rational inquiry elicits incomprehension or outrage, though it is often masked in other terms...

A challenge to the underlying patriotic assumption is virtually unthinkable within the mainstream and, if permitted expression, would be dismissed as a variety of ideological fanaticism, an absurdity, even if backed by overwhelming evidence -- not a difficult task in this case...

Case by case we find that conformity is the easy way, and the path to privilege and prestige; dissidence carries personal costs that may be severe, even in a society that lacks such means of control as death squads, psychiatric prisons, or extermination camps. The very structure of the media is designed to induce conformity to established doctrine. In a three-minute stretch between commercials, or in seven hundred words, it is impossible to present unfamiliar thoughts or surprising conclusions with the argument and evidence required to afford them such credibility. Regurgitation of welcome pieties faces no such problem.

...According to this "propaganda model"...the media serve the interests of state and corporate power, which are closely interlinked, framing their reporting and analysis in a manner suportive of established privilege and limiting debate and discussion accordingly...

One prediction of the model is that it will be effectively excluded from discussion, for it questions a factual assumption that is most serviceable to the interests of established power: namely, that the media are adversarial and cantankerous, perhaps excessively so. However well-confirmed the model may be, then, it is inadmissible, and, the model predicts, should remain outside the spectrum of debate over the media. This conclusion too is empirically well-confirmed. Note that the model has a rather disconcerting feature. Plainly, it is either valid or invalid. If invalid, it may be dismissed; if valid, it will be dismissed. As in the case of eighteenth-century doctrine on seditious libel, truth is no defense; rather, it heightens the enormity of the crime of calling authority into disrepute."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

[Montaq]

Originally Posted by rascal

And yes Clinton did it as well so shut up.

Proof? Of course not.

[Spider]

I didnt want to turn this into a Rep- Dem fight , I was just wondering of this was commen place , and we are just now finding out about it ?.......
It does raise alot of questions about pundits on bothsides though ......I asked Rascal in earnest about Clinton , not to debate him .......

[Mile High Shack]

I'd don't know anything about this

but just by common sense I'd assume this happens on both sides for years

playing the media was a technique first used with skill back in the 1800's with Garfield I think (I think)

I doubt this has never happened before

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I didnt want to turn this into a Rep- Dem fight , I was just wondering of this was commen place , and we are just now finding out about it ?.......
It does raise alot of questions about pundits on bothsides though ......I asked Rascal in earnest about Clinton , not to debate him .......

Yes, this is common place. Papers in this country were often times established for the expressed purpose of supporting one agenda over another.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

I'd don't know anything about this

but just by common sense I'd assume this happens on both sides for years

playing the media was a technique first used with skill back in the 1800's with Garfield I think (I think)

I doubt this has never happened before

well watching Joe Scarbrough , it doesnt happen , In fact Joe blew a gasket when someone brought that up ........ The Media should be an independent entity , non bias , and beholden to the truth and news ........
If we have a media that can be bought , then we have a freedom that can be bought ....
Our Media is what seperates us from alot of other countries .......

[Spider]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Yes, this is common place. Papers in this country were often times established for the expressed purpose of supporting one agenda over another.

I am not talking about Ad's I am talking about being on the white house payroll ..... it is one thing for the RNC or the DNC to run articals yadda ,yadda, yadda, but to have a pundit on the white house Payroll is a different matter ........

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

well watching Joe Scarbrough , it doesnt happen , In fact Joe blew a gasket when someone brought that up ........ The Media should be an independent entity , non bias , and beholden to the truth and news ........
If we have a media that can be bought , then we have a freedom that can be bought ....
Our Media is what seperates us from alot of other countries .......

then he is probably a little naive

there are a lot of people that can be bought

[Mile High Shack]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I am not talking about Ad's I am talking about being on the white house payroll ..... it is one thing for the RNC or the DNC to run articals yadda ,yadda, yadda, but to have a pundit on the white house Payroll is a different matter ........

I don't think he was talking about ads

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

then he is probably a little naive

there are a lot of people that can be bought

I dont think we are making a connection here , lets try it from this angle ......
How many memebers of the Media has been on the white house Payroll ?
This is distrubing , let me put it like this , what if Ted Kennedy used tax payer money to promote Abu Grahib to futher his agenda ?
I got a feeling , the attitude on the right would be alot more then everyone does it ........

[Rascal]

Originally Posted by §Pide®

I am not saying Clinton didnt do it , but could you tell me when and by whom ?

Off the top of my head no.

And yes I know you aren't trying to be an ass in starting a debate just wanting to know...well maybe

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Mile High Shack

I don't think he was talking about ads

Then show me where the Media has been on previous white house pay rolls ..... thats all I am asking ....... Normaly somthing like this gets out , and people step foward and say look Clinton Paid me to spin the White Sands scandle ..... We did hear about the Chineese that Paid Clinton ......

[Spider]

Originally Posted by rascal

Off the top of my head no.

And yes I know you aren't trying to be an ass in starting a debate just wanting to know...well maybe

...... No I wasnt trying to be an ass , I just want to know how our Tax Dollars are being spent , buying the Media from the whitehouse is not proper use of Tax dollars ........ This issue does piss me off ......