• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

BUSH ADMIN GUILTY of spreading "covert propaganda" inside the United States,

dahunan

Lifer

[Commentary]I know it will be given a free pass.. just like Rush Limbaugh being a drug addict.. Bush using the Govt to spread lies and propaganda illegally will not even make his supporters flinch. [/Commentary]




Audit Assails the White House for Public Relations Spending

Sign In to E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Reprints
Save Article
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: September 30, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said today that the Bush administration had violated the law by purchasing favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" inside the United States, in violation of a longstanding, explicit statutory ban.

The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the administration's public relations campaign had been known for months. The report today provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.

Lawyers from the G.A.O., an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the Bush administration had systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."

The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds."

The G.A.O. also assailed the Education Department for telling Ketchum Inc., a large public relations company, to pay Mr. Williams for newspaper columns and television appearances praising Mr. Bush's education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.

When that arrangement became publicly known, it set off widespread criticism. At a news conference in January, Mr. Bush said: "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."

But more recently the Education Department defended its payments to Mr. Williams, saying his commentaries were "no more than the legitimate dissemination of information to the public."

The G.A.O. said the Education Department had no money or authority to "procure favorable commentary in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition" in federal law.

In the course of its work, the accountability office discovered a previously undisclosed instance in which the Education Department had commissioned a newspaper article. The article, on the "declining science literacy of students," was distributed by the North American Precis Syndicate and appeared in numerous small newspapers around the country. Readers were not informed of the government's role in writing of the article.

The auditors also denounced a prepackaged television news story disseminated by the Education Department. The news segment, a "video news release" narrated by a woman named Karen Ryan, said that President Bush's program for providing remedial instruction and tutoring to children "gets an A-plus."

Ms. Ryan also narrated two videos praising the new Medicare drug benefit last year. In those segments, as in the education video, the narrator ended by saying, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

The prepackaged television news segments on education and on Medicare did not inform the audience that they had been prepared and distributed by the government.

The public relations efforts by the Education Department came to light a few weeks before Margaret Spellings was sworn in as secretary in January. SA spokeswoman for the secretary, Susan Aspey, said Ms. Spellings regarded the efforts as "stupid, wrong and ill-advised." She said Ms. Spellings had adopted procedures "to ensure these types of missteps don't happen again."

The investigation by the Government Accountability Office was requested by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats.

Mr. Lautenberg expressed concern about a section of the G.A.O. report in which federal investigators said they could not find records to confirm that Mr. Williams had performed all the activities for which he billed the government.

The Education Department said it had paid Ketchum $186,000 for services performed by Mr. Williams's company. But it could not provide transcripts of speeches, copies of articles or records of other services performed by Mr. Williams, the G.A.O. said.

In March, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said that federal agencies did not have to acknowledge their role in producing television news segments if they were purely factual. The inspector general of the Education Department reiterated that position earlier this month.

But the Government Accountability Office said today: "The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual. The essential fact of attribution is missing."

The G.A.O. said that Mr. Williams's work for the government resulted from a written proposal that he submitted to the Education Department in March 2003. The department directed Ketchum to use Mr. Williams as a regular commentator on Mr. Bush's education policies. Ketchum had a federal contract to help publicize the law, signed by Mr. Bush in 2002.

The Education Department flouted the law by telling Ketchum to use Mr. Williams to "convey a message to the public on behalf of the government, without disclosing to the public that the messengers were acting on the government's behalf and in return for the payment of public funds," the G.A.O. said.

The Education Department spent $38,421 for production and distribution of the video news release and $96,850 for the evaluation of newspaper articles and radio and television programs. Ketchum assigned a score to each article, indicating how frequently and favorably it mentioned specific features of the new education law.

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a spending bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money can be used to produce or distribute a prepackaged news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged. Congress said the law "confirms the opinion of the G.A.O." on this issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/polit...c3a62f5665c5a&ei=5094&partner=homepage
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Maybe this is why Bush seems to like Putin so much? They got something in common?

lmao replies to his own post.

Anyways doesnt sound terribly covert to me.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dahunan
Maybe this is why Bush seems to like Putin so much? They got something in common?

lmao replies to his own post.

Anyways doesnt sound terribly covert to me.



I had to because I know it will be given a free pass.. just like Rush Limbaugh being a drug addict.. Bush using the Govt to spread lies and propaganda illegally will not even make his supporters flinch.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: dahunan
Maybe this is why Bush seems to like Putin so much? They got something in common?

lmao replies to his own post.

Anyways doesnt sound terribly covert to me.



I had to because I know it will be given a free pass.. just like Rush Limbaugh being a drug addict.. Bush using the Govt to spread lies and propaganda illegally will not even make his supporters flinch.

Your best bet is to at least add commentary otherwise this will get locked.


 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are there still people today who believe that any reporting coming from the media is not one form of propaganda or another?

Unsurprising the same people who probably believe in another form of utopia, communism.

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are there still people today who believe that any reporting coming from the media is not one form of propaganda or another?
a/k/a the "Two wrongs make a right" duhversion.

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are there still people today who believe that any reporting coming from the media is not one form of propaganda or another?
Are there still AT members, today, who believe that any post coming from TastesLikeChicken is not one form of propaganda or another? :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are there still people today who believe that any reporting coming from the media is not one form of propaganda or another?

What difference does that make? I don't exactly view the media as a higher pillar of truth, but even if they have the journalistic integrity of the former Iraqi information minister, it is still illegal for the government to buy propaganda coverage in the US. I would think the reasons for this ban should be obvious.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are there still people today who believe that any reporting coming from the media is not one form of propaganda or another?

What difference does that make? I don't exactly view the media as a higher pillar of truth, but even if they have the journalistic integrity of the former Iraqi information minister, it is still illegal for the government to buy propaganda coverage in the US. I would think the reasons for this ban should be obvious.
Did you actually read the article? It's not illegal. The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced. There is no ban on such things.

 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are there still people today who believe that any reporting coming from the media is not one form of propaganda or another?
Are there still AT members, today, who believe that any post coming from TastesLikeChicken is not one form of propaganda or another? :laugh:
Where you been lately Harvey. Recovering from your latest emoticon overdose? :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are there still people today who believe that any reporting coming from the media is not one form of propaganda or another?

What difference does that make? I don't exactly view the media as a higher pillar of truth, but even if they have the journalistic integrity of the former Iraqi information minister, it is still illegal for the government to buy propaganda coverage in the US. I would think the reasons for this ban should be obvious.
Did you actually read the article? It's not illegal. The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced. There is no ban on such things.


Do you do standup comedy as a side job?

WHY did they fail to mention it? OMG.. I am really LOL right now..
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did you actually read the article? It's not illegal. The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced. There is no ban on such things.
Yes, I read the article:

Federal auditors said today that the Bush administration had violated the law...

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a spending bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money can be used to produce or distribute a prepackaged news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged. Congress said the law "confirms the opinion of the G.A.O." on this issue.

The activities are a crime because the government failed to mention that the spots were produced by the government.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are there still people today who believe that any reporting coming from the media is not one form of propaganda or another?

What difference does that make? I don't exactly view the media as a higher pillar of truth, but even if they have the journalistic integrity of the former Iraqi information minister, it is still illegal for the government to buy propaganda coverage in the US. I would think the reasons for this ban should be obvious.
Did you actually read the article? It's not illegal. The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced. There is no ban on such things.


Do you do standup comedy as a side job?

WHY did they fail to mention it? OMG.. I am really LOL right now..
Thank you. Thank you very much. I'll be here all year.

Don't forget to tip those sexay waitresses.
 
Originally posted by: vitoprimo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did you actually read the article? It's not illegal. The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced. There is no ban on such things.
Yes, I read the article:

Federal auditors said today that the Bush administration had violated the law...

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a spending bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money can be used to produce or distribute a prepackaged news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged. Congress said the law "confirms the opinion of the G.A.O." on this issue.

The activities are a crime because the government failed to mention that the spots were produced by the government.

<ahem>

As I already stated, and which seemed to blow right over the point of your head:

"The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced."

Thanks for backing me up. :lips:
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: vitoprimo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did you actually read the article? It's not illegal. The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced. There is no ban on such things.
Yes, I read the article:

Federal auditors said today that the Bush administration had violated the law...

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a spending bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money can be used to produce or distribute a prepackaged news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged. Congress said the law "confirms the opinion of the G.A.O." on this issue.

The activities are a crime because the government failed to mention that the spots were produced by the government.

<ahem>

As I already stated, and which seemed to blow right over the point of your head:

"The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced."

Thanks for backing me up. :lips:


Just give us your opinion why they would fail to mention it.. you act like it was accidental LMAO
 
Yep, the apologists are still hard at work here on P&N...:roll: Seriously, I think the GOP owes more than a few people here some kind of compensation for all of their hard, albeit pathetic, efforts.
 
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: vitoprimo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did you actually read the article? It's not illegal. The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced. There is no ban on such things.
Yes, I read the article:

Federal auditors said today that the Bush administration had violated the law...

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a spending bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money can be used to produce or distribute a prepackaged news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged. Congress said the law "confirms the opinion of the G.A.O." on this issue.

The activities are a crime because the government failed to mention that the spots were produced by the government.

<ahem>

As I already stated, and which seemed to blow right over the point of your head:

"The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced."

Thanks for backing me up. :lips:


Just give us your opinion why they would fail to mention it.. you act like it was accidental LMAO
Surely it was in the contracts?

Why don't you dig one up and show us all that the Education Department specified that the government not be mentioned as the originators of the spots?

Oh, wait. I see what you're getting at. You want some TFH speculation. Here you go:

Damn those tricksy gubmint types. Always trying to fool us with their propaganda. I have no proof, but I just know that's what happened.

Better?
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: vitoprimo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did you actually read the article? It's not illegal. The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced. There is no ban on such things.
Yes, I read the article:

Federal auditors said today that the Bush administration had violated the law...

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a spending bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money can be used to produce or distribute a prepackaged news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged. Congress said the law "confirms the opinion of the G.A.O." on this issue.

The activities are a crime because the government failed to mention that the spots were produced by the government.

<ahem>

As I already stated, and which seemed to blow right over the point of your head:

"The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced."

Thanks for backing me up. :lips:

Are you retarded? That's why it was illegal.

"You broke the law, you left the store without paying!"

TLC: "It was not illegal"

"IYou didn't pay for it"

"Thanks for backing me up, I didn't pay."
 
Originally posted by: vitoprimo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
"The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced."
Thank you for confirming the adminstration's illegal activity.
Thanks for finally noticing that I had already done that before you even replied to me. 😉
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: vitoprimo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did you actually read the article? It's not illegal. The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced. There is no ban on such things.
Yes, I read the article:

Federal auditors said today that the Bush administration had violated the law...

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a spending bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money can be used to produce or distribute a prepackaged news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged. Congress said the law "confirms the opinion of the G.A.O." on this issue.

The activities are a crime because the government failed to mention that the spots were produced by the government.

<ahem>

As I already stated, and which seemed to blow right over the point of your head:

"The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced."

Thanks for backing me up. :lips:

Are you retarded? That's why it was illegal.

"You broke the law, you left the store without paying!"

TLC: "It was not illegal"

"IYou didn't pay for it"

"Thanks for backing me up, I didn't pay."
No, apparently you who are the retarded one, or at the very least are lacking reading comprehension. Now follow closely. Here's what what was said:

"What difference does that make? I don't exactly view the media as a higher pillar of truth, but even if they have the journalistic integrity of the former Iraqi information minister, it is still illegal for the government to buy propaganda coverage in the US. I would think the reasons for this ban should be obvious. "

It is NOT illegal for the government to "buy" such coverage. It is illegal not to mention that the spot is government produced.

Get it yet, Tawd?
 
Originally posted by: vitoprimo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Did you actually read the article? It's not illegal. The failure was in mentioning that the spots were government produced. There is no ban on such things.
Yes, I read the article:

Federal auditors said today that the Bush administration had violated the law...

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a spending bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money can be used to produce or distribute a prepackaged news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged. Congress said the law "confirms the opinion of the G.A.O." on this issue.

The activities are a crime because the government failed to mention that the spots were produced by the government.

Seems pretty clear to me TLC. Maybe you should stop replying, you just look like a big Bush fluffer. The law was not disclosing and that's what it says above. But, you can keep parsing words and asking what "is" is.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Are there still people today who believe that any reporting coming from the media is not one form of propaganda or another?
Unsurprising the same people who probably believe in another form of utopia, communism.
Statists are as statists believe. There are currently in the uncomfortable position of hating Bush and his corrupt and overreaching authority while believing in the power and rightness of the state at the same time.
 
Back
Top