Taxpayer Paid for Propaganda?

Remove all ads!

I had forgotten I posted in this thread, but now I'm caught up (and fully rested)

I still don't understand it.

From Chandos' first post. They use the words commentator and journalist. I consider those two things vastly different. A commentator (by my definition) is injecting opinion into a subject. A journalist is supposed to be an independent reporter. Does anyone consider Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken journalists?

In Chandos' second post once again I think the "Paid Endorsement" and journalist are being confused. If I understand what is going on, this guy (and I have no idea who he is) has a syndicated conservative show and received money to shill Bush's education policy. Well first of all if it is a conservative show he probably agreed with the positions anyway. It isn't like someone paying Dan Rather to come to the Dark Side . How does this compare to Oprah giving away all of those free Pontiacs on her show? Oprah didn't give away anything. Pontiac paid her do that show and gave her the cars to give away. Was there a big disclaimer at the end of the show saying that she was a paid spokesman for Pontiac? Now I agree there is a big difference between the government and a commerical operation, but I don't agree that someone did something horrible.

From ArteChoke

As I mentioned above, it wasn't like they paid the CBS evening news to do it. From what I can tell (I'm starting to sound like a broken record) this guy isn't running a news broadcast. He is a talk show host.

Oops, I hadn't realized that Darkwolf said

and then Cernak says

Personally I tend to think that Darkwolf understood the situation and Cernak didn't, If the show isn't a news broadcast we have a little bit of an OVER-REACTION

In closing (and to include Clinton), renting out the White House for campaign contributions is much worse from what I can tell. I will agree that the taking of money without disclosure was probably not the brightest thing to do. However, I learned long ago, never to underestimate the stupid.

 

Well your understanding might be a bit tweaked because the article that's linked now, is an updated and different one than Chandos originally posted 2 days ago. I couldn't find Chandos's quotes from above in the article.

I'll drop a quote from the current one though:

Emphasis mine, of course. Note, this one has nothing to do with Williams.

 

But that's your view of the two as being vastly different. Not eveyone shares this viewpoint. In fact, that is a large part of the debate right now - that the lines between the two have become blurred, and are not "so vastly different." Should any editorialist give an opinion, even as a conservative, by being paid to represent a particular issue the way the government would like? Remember they are using YOUR money to pay this turkey to endorse their program.

I had always thought that part of the conservative scheme was less government, and less government spending. Ohhhhhh, and then there's Shrub. How silly of me to forget that that's the "old fashion conservatives" who wanted more responsiblity in government. That's not how it is these days with the conservatives, since THEY are the ones controlling the levers of power. Vita Nuova, TGS?

Suppose Armstrong thinks that the no child left behind gig is a lot of hooey. BUT, he thinks, yeah, for 240,000 clams I don't have a problem saying it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. A lot of "card-carrying" conservatives listen to these guys and think that they REALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. But if they are being paid, how do you know what they really believe? So, since they may be a paid mouthpieces for the government, why listen to them at all? What is their real function in the grand scheme of American democracy, and the democratic process?

 

When the President speaks, is that considered news? Last I heard it was. Is what he says from his own perspective? Damn right it is. Why is that any different? There is no Journalism any more. All that there is is spin from one side or another. Isn't pretending otherwise insulting to the people?

 

If the president received a personal check for this kind of money to say something in a speech it would be considered a bribe, which is illegal. There are a few standards left somewhere.

 

If everything is "spin", then there are no longer any standards, any ethics, any "truth". Rather strange behavior for an administration that insists on its high standard of "moral values". Or is that just "spin" as well? Or should they have it both ways, choosing the mantra for the day as it comes?
This is pure cynicism, not "moral values". Total corruption; complete cynicism; a beacon to us all in these difficult times.

 

Spin doesn't acknowledge that it is spin, but tries to masquerade as truth. The President gets his own paycheck. Is that a bribe?

As for paying this guy to promote your agenda isn't that advertising? Where's the line between advertising and propoganda? Isn't Pepsi's latest slogan just more propaganda to create a favourable reaction to Pepsi?

[ January 12, 2005, 07:10: Message edited by: Gnarfflinger ]

 

No, it's his paycheck. The public pays him this for being the prez, along with numerous other perks. I guess the answer to your question is contained in the question itself. I'm not sure you know the difference between a bribe and a paycheck. Or if you actually believe they are the same thing.

 

Is there a difference? He's in business to keep his job for the remainder of his term. He ultimately promotes his own agenda. What's the difference if he says it himself or hires a spokesperson to say it for him?

 

Bribe, illegal - money used to coerce someone
Paycheck, legal - money for services rendered

I suppose you could say that a bribe could be a paycheck, but not all paychecks are bribes.

Since its come down to this, I'll explain further - a friend of mine goes out to a night club in Boston. The line is long and isn't moving. He walks up to the door guy, and shakes his hand, asks him how long its going to take to get in. In his hand is a 20 dollar bill.

The door guy suddenly finds room on the "guest list" and lets in my friend and his wife. This is a bribe.

Later, at the end of the night, the door guy gets paid by the club for keeping order, which is why he was there in the first place. This is a paycheck.

See? He made a special exception, which he wasn't supposed to do, for a... bribe.

Now along the lines of hiring a spokesperson, he has many spokespersons. That's not a problem, when they speak, at a press conference, or interviews, or whatever, you know who they are representing, and that's fine. No one is saying that George doesn't have the right to represent his agenda. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't be earning his, paycheck.

Now, paying a news station, to run a segment put together by a director with actors during the news... that's propaganda. Its not really being reported on, which is what reporters are supposed to do, its scripted, which is what actors do. If they had done the same thing, and run it as a commercial spot, rather than trying to pass it off as actual news, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't know how much more simplistic this can get.

 

He is in "business" to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. It is the oath he takes when he puts his hand on the Bible and tells the rest of us that that is what he is in "business" for. You will see him do this on January 20th.

The founders put a great amount of thought and effort into the crafting of the exectutive office, because they had just freed themselves from the tyranny of a king. The last thing they wanted was to create the same situation again for themselves and the country. In the crafting of our government they felt the best way to insure the liberty of the people was to have the greatest power with the Congress, as it best represents the People. It is the "business" of the People that we should be concerned with here.

These are true American values, and I addressed the impact that recent presidents have had on these values in the opening of this topic. It is clear that they certainly have had a degrading influence on how some people view public office in our own times.

This is in Article II of the very same Constitution:

This is from section 4 of the same Article:

 

And me as an outsider have always marvelled at the power the American president seems to be wield. To external eyes it doesnt seems any less than the monarchs of past, they too had legislative and advisory bodies but the most of the real power lay in the hands of the monarch, just as it appears to lay in the hands of the president in the US.

 

My own take on this is that the raise of modern political parties has made this possible, as it flies in the face, so to speak, of the Constitution. The President is the effective leader of his party and if his party controls both the houses of congress then he effectively controls the congress. He also appoints the members of the Supreme Court, so he has "political partners" there as well. Thus, he has the kind of power which you correctly speak of.

The Founders never considered that the Court would have as much power as it does today, as it was a very weak institution in its early years. For better or worse, for the most part, we can thank John Marshall for the rise of the Court into the powerful institution it is today.

The People have the power to change any of this simply by electing the opposite party into postitions in government that will help keep the institutions separate. This is why the fight over the Supreme Court appointments are of such looming importance. The elections of 2006 could change the balance of power in congress if Shrub screws-up, which he may be on the verge of doing with Social Security reform. Then there will be some parity once again.

 

Yes, Chandos, I know what the President is "Supposed" to do, but there is an increasingly large gap between that and what they actually do. Further, if the President believed that what he did was in the country's best interests, then isn't he obligated to do it? I believe it was pointed out that it was a Democrat that pointed this out. Wouldn't that be propoganda too?

 

How can taking a bribe be in the best interest of the country?

 

I though he was accused of offering a bribe...

 

It appears that may be the case:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6823625/

 

So now that depends on who gave what orders (and what they are specifically) and let the chips fall where they may. The next question is who introduced the term propaganda into the allegations? Feeding BS to the news happens all the time (Like whenever a politician opens their mouth), but where's that line drawn?

 

Given a lack of principles by these people, I would say when money changes hands.

Edit: Here's more on this, with a very funny satirical piece:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6809266/site/newsweek/

[ January 15, 2005, 06:45: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]