Taxpayer Paid for Propaganda?

Remove all ads!

Just when you would think that the Bush administration couldn't stoop much lower, along comes this:

So where is the big Republican outcry about America's need to return to it's "values" under this sorry excuse for an administration? Remember the Clinton days? The guy couldn't take a fart without some Republican "talking head" ranting about Bill degrading our values by renting out the Lincoln bedroom, or having contributors over for coffee at the White House. I guess the guy just belonged to the wrong party.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6798618/

 

I'm going to turn on Fox right now and watch the spin machine in action.

This is embarrassing, but you are wrong in believing that this is anything like Clinton's purported breahces of integrity. The so called "value voters" don't really care about this type of thing.

[ January 08, 2005, 04:19: Message edited by: Rednik ]

 

I might be to tired to truly understand this (It has been a long week). To me it seems like an advertising campaign. What is wrong with that? What does this have to do with values? Would it be a different story if they had picked Jesse Jackson to be the spokesperson? How about Bill Cosby?

 

If they don't like the guy in charge, they'll say anything they can to discredit him or slam him in the press. I take that with a grain of salt and move on to the next dish.

 

And how is this any different from said "talking heads" harping on about minor things? Well, naturally, because Bush is a Republican, he is Satan Incarnate, and because Clinton was a Democrat, he was unfairly demonized, but apart from this common knowledge, I don't see how this is more important than, as your example is, Clinton renting out the White House. Who produces commercials and who takes what views for how much is utterly irrelevant. People are paid to make statements all the time. Just because your talking head is Democratic doesn't give you more of a right to harp than a Republican's.

 

No, they are not. Now, if I tell my readers that I am being paid to endorse a postition, then there's nothing wrong with it. It is what it is: A PAID ENDORSEMENT. It would be like if you or I went down to the local paper and paid a journalist to write a story in favor of something I wanted to have done. I see that the Bush supporters really just don't get it. Have you guys really gone that far off the board that you don't see anything wrong with this?

Even the guy who took the money made this comment for the WP:

Come on, Bushies. I know you love your guy and all, but....

This is from the same WP article:

Right on!

 

For the slow guys:

The government is paying news stations, to show you news, that's favorable to said government paying them.

Not an advertisement.

News.

Furthermore, they are using your money to feed you the fake news.

How can anyone not see what's wrong with this?

Edit: I knew this story sounded familiar, they pulled this stunt last year to support their medicare program. They hired actors to play reporters, to report fake news, and then sent the fake news to 126 real news stations.

 

Agreed. Spending tax money on propanga sucks. Anything more than a modest and purely informative campaign sucks. I hate it. They did that in Poland when they were promoting the UE accession before the referendum.

 

It seems to me that this is similar to subcontracting an advertisement. They pay someone to say something on television, and to bring some people into their studio to support it. It's typically shorter than a political commentary show, but it's still money exchanging hands to put propaganda on the television. Taxpayer's money is going into all sorts of things they find objectionable, no matter which party they're on. I'm surprised that an outcry at taxpayer's money going into these annoying "Army of One" commercials hasn't yet erupted.

 

Ok, first off, Williams is a political commentator, not a journalist. Secondly, his rep is shot (if he really ever had a good one). He has no credibility at this point. I haven't been able to stomach any of the conservative talking heads since the election because they are convinced that Bush won, when in reality it was Kerry who lost, Bush only won by default, so I don't know how Hannity or Limbaugh are spinning this. However, I did listen to Boortz on Friday, and he slammed the snot out of Williams, and ridiculed the Administration for this pathetic action.

That said, this isn't anything all that terribly new. The Bush administration is just so full of itself that it doesn't think it needs to even bother covering its tracks. Almost all the political commentators out there have some tie that creates a conflict of interest or three, Williams was just stupid enough to take the cash.

In reality, I don't think that this is a major issue, I mean, it isn't like one of the big 3 primetime journalists was caught using forged documents that they didn't bother to verify, even though the docs were fed to them by an operative of the opposing party.

 

Wow Darkwolf, you almost fooled me there. A full post without really critizising the liberals OR any sarcasm, I am sure Chandos was sent to hospital for intense medicare for that.


...Until that last paragraph came. There was the lib-critizising and sarcasm I was looking for.


EDIT:
Just wanted to add what I've said before:
Most Americans wouldn't survive a minute in Sweden. I mean, we have a somewhat socialistic government, MUCH more socialistic than the Demcrats have been, pick any year. We also have not only one, not two, but THREE government channels, SVT, SVT2, and SVT24.* The gambling and alcohol buisness are owned and governed by the STATE, it's illegal to sell booze stronger than 3.5% and the only legal gaming company is Svenska Spel. People are OPENLY calling themself both Nazi and Communists, even though few of them actually even tries to uphold those ideals.

But, most important of all, we don't have, if you excuse my non-politicial correctness, such stupid politics as the USA. Very few vote on someone because he 'looks more good-natured' than another, and we don't have that stupid two-party system, even though we are turning that way.

As someone said:
"Farhenheit 9/11 did what USA have tried to do the last 50 years: putting other nation's political system down to the same low intelligent levels as theirs. The only difference is that F9/11 did it in less than two hours."

And no, we aren't the Soviet Union in disguise.

*And no, opposed to you initial reaction, we don't only get propaganda from those channels.

EDIT2:
Oops, quite the rant there, unfortunatly, it was off-topic as well. I did not mean to offend anyone, and most of the things said about America in this post have been said before on this board, unmoderated.

Also, to contribute SOMETHING to the topic:

I say that what they are doing are wrong, VERY wrong, but I for once agree with Darkwolf, more important things needs to be solved. This problem should be solved, but USA needs more than just cleaning it's corners and under the couch, they need to spray the whole room first.(If that doesn't make any sence, it's understandible. I am tired and it sounds much better in Swedish.)

[ January 09, 2005, 04:45: Message edited by: Caleb* ]

 

So the Government isn't allowed to blow it's own horn infront of people who don't like them? What's the good of preaching to the choir here? So they used public money to promote their programs. Are you saying the Democrats didn't do the same thing? I can't site specifics because I am from Canada, where the Federal and Provincial governments used public money to fund blatantly "Pro-Governing Party" advertisement (as opposed to spending it on healthcare and education as is their mandate). I didn't like either one and found the ads nauseating.

The point is, the Government is going to spend public money to promote their programs (Where is the line between advertising and propoganda?) and their critics won't like it. Critics criticize, that's what they do. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Republicans would be all over John Kerry if the roles were reversed...

 

I expected that Darkwolf would not like this either. I don't mean to speak for him, but he seems to have as much distrust of big government, and government "heavy-handedness" as anyone else.

When it was came out that Clinton was having contributors over at the White House for "coffee" and "sleep-overs," it made me quite uneasy. For some of us, principles are more important than party politics. The point is that both parties engage in unethical practices these days. Some may say that "it's always been this way," but I think it has gotten worse over the last several years and, as long as they don't get caught, a lot of these guys just don't care. And that is why I'm not a card-carrying member of either party.

[ January 09, 2005, 06:33: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

The point, Gnarf--and I am about the umpteenth poster to make it--is that this is NOT being offered as some kind of ad or promotion for a government program. It is being offered to TV stations as IMPARTIAL NEWS FROM AN UNBIASED SOURCE, and is intended to be broadcast as such. As such it is a sham; a lie. Ads and promotions, being known to be paid for, are assumed to promote the point of view of whatever person or group paid for it. Unbiased news, or what is presented as unbiased news, is presumed to be just that: unbiased.

 

So...teaching abstinence is un-american? Teaching self-esteem is un-american? Have I been asleep too long? don't make me come up there and spank you all.

 

Awww... Hackey woke up in the wrong thread.

 

You are dead on right Chandos. But I do think that he American public has to take the blame for this behavior, as we keep rewarding it by sending the same slugs back to Washington, election after pathetic election. I may be a pessimist, but I really believe that 90% of the public votes based upon who they believe will put the most cash in their pockets today, to hell with tomorrow.

 

Teaching abstinence IS un-American. True Americans **** till they're dead. Teaching self-esteem IS un-American. True Americans abase themselves before authority figures. I trust this answers your questions.

[ January 10, 2005, 10:36: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

No, no, no. True Americans [censored] other people until the other guy dies. Note that the other guy is typically a foreign national from an undeveloped country.

Similarly, True Americans force other people--again, usually derned foreigners, to abase themselves.

C'mon man, get it right!