Originally posted by: moviesguy
http://www.editorandpublisher...._content_id=1000778178
Gallagher Criticizes 'WP' Article; Kurtz Rebuts
Editor & Publisher ^ | January 26, 2005 | Dave Astor
Posted on 01/26/2005 8:03:47 PM PST by nickcarraway
NEW YORK Maggie Gallagher released a statement this afternoon taking issue with aspects of the Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz that today broke the news that she received $21,500 from the Department of Health and Human Services for marriage-themed writing projects. She called one of the Kurtz passages "completely false."
Kurtz, after being contacted by E&P, read a rebuttal statement over the phone, in which he said she was attempting to "blame the messenger."
Here are Gallagher's comments, followed by Kurtz':
"On January 26, 2005, Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post wrote that I 'had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the President's proposal.'
"To me, this is an extremely serious charge. It is also completely false. I was not paid to promote the President's marriage proposal. In 2001 I was approached by HHS to do research and writing, not on the President's $300 million marriage initiative, but on marriage: specifically four brochures on the social-science evidence on the benefits of marriage for populations serviced by HHS (such as unwed parents), a draft of an essay for Wade Horn, and a training presentation on the social-science evidence on the benefits of marriage for regional HHS managers.
"I've been a marriage expert, researcher, and advocate for nearly 20 years. I've written two books on marriage, numerous articles in scholarly journals, as well as many newspaper columns and magazine articles. My research and expertise is why HHS hired me, and why I accepted the work assignment. I have written a syndicated column for almost 10 years, but my main work has been research and public education on marriage as a social institution.
"I did not and would not accept any payment to promote anyone else's policies of any kind in my newspaper column or anywhere else. Moreover on Jan. 25, I offered Howard Kurtz copies of my contract and invoice as documentation of my work product. He had also received a copy of my Jan. 25 column, explaining the exact nature of the work I performed, before he filed his story.
"It is not uncommon for researchers, scholars, or experts to get paid by the government to do work relating to their field of expertise. Nor is it considered unethical or shady: if anything, government funded work is considered a mark of an expert's respectability. Until today, researchers and scholars have not generally been expected to disclose a government-funded research project in the past, when they later wrote about their field of expertise in the popular press or in scholarly journals.
"For these reasons, it simply never occurred to me there was a need to disclose this information. I certainly had no intention or motive to hide my work from anyone. As a journalist, however, when the question is raised 'Should you have disclosed?' the answer is always, yes. It was a mistake on my part not to have disclosed any government contract. It will not happen again."
In response, Kurtz told E&P: "It's too bad that Maggie Gallagher, in the process of apologizing for her mistake, has seen fit to blame the messenger. My story made quite clear that her work at HHS included writing brochures for the President's marriage initiative, ghostwriting a magazine article for a top official, and briefing other department officials on the issue. That sure sounds like promotion to me, but none of this would be a media controversy had Ms. Gallagher disclosed the contract in her writing trumpeting the Bush marriage plan."
The Universal Press Syndicate-distributed Gallagher, when reached by E&P, declined to comment beyond her e-mailed statement.
__________________________________
A QUESTION OF DISCLOSURE
Tue Jan 25, 7:59 PM ET Op/Ed - Maggie Gallagher
By Maggie Gallagher
I just got off the phone with Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post. He called me with a very good question: "You had a contract with HHS to do some work on marriage issues in 2002. Should you have disclosed that?"
Maggie Gallagher
Hmm, good question, Howard.
First the facts. In 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites) approached me to do some work on marriage issues for the government, including a presentation of the social science evidence on the benefits of marriage for HHS regional managers, to draft an essay for Wade Horn, assistant secretary of HHS, on how government can strengthen marriage, and to prepare drafts of community brochures: "The Top Ten Reasons Marriage Matters," stuff like that.
The contract reads: "ACF (Administration for Children and Families, part of HHS) is pursuing research to create knowledge about the dynamics of marriage among low-income populations, and potential strategies states might pursue to strengthen marriage. ACF needs additional expertise to accomplish this work.
"Statement of work: The contractor shall consult with and assist ACF in ongoing work related to strengthening marriage, and provide assistance advice on development of new research activities in this area. The contractor shall perform a variety of activities including (but not limited to) providing information on the programs to strengthen marriage, advising on the dissemination of materials, and participating in meetings and workshops."
The contract did not authorize a general consulting fee. Instead it authorized payment for actual work performed, to be submitted and approved via separate invoice.
By my records, I was paid $21,500 from HHS in 2002.
Is it acceptable for someone who writes a newspaper column to do research and writing for the government?
Of course, the reason Howard Kurtz of the Post is interested is the now-notorious case of conservative columnist Armstrong Williams, who signed a very different sort of government contract: to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind Act on his television show.
Armstrong defended himself in two ways, first by saying, "I'm a pundit, not a journalist." And second by saying that he supported the Bush act anyway, so why shouldn't he take money?
It cost him his newspaper column. Very properly, I might add. I have no interest in taking either of these lines of defense. So what's my answer to Howard?
My first instinct is to say, no, Howard, I had no special obligation to disclose this information. I'm a marriage expert. I get paid to write, edit, research and educate on marriage. If a scholar or expert gets paid to do some work for the government, should he or she disclose that if he writes a paper, essay or op-ed on the same or similar subject? If this is the ethical standard, it is an entirely new standard.
I was not paid to promote marriage. I was paid to produce particular research and writing products (articles, brochures, presentations), which I produced. My lifelong experience in marriage research, public education and advocacy is the reason HHS hired me.
But the real truth is that it never occurred to me. On reflection, I think Howard is right. I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers.
Facebook
Twitter