Welfare Columnists

And another Republican pundit turns out to be on the dole. This time it's Michael McManus, whose "Ethics & Religion" column appears in 50 newspapers. The feds paid him about $10,000 to promote Bush's marriage initiative.

Comments

[Curious]

So how much do you Reason writers get from the political parties to push their agenda?

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Can you spot the lie in the first sentence of the Salon article?

Perhaps listening to the Maggie Gallagher interview might help.

[joe]

I saw that inteview, Wacko. Gallagher came down hard on Williams, and distinguished their situations quite effectively, in my estimation.

Williams got paid to be a spokesman for the administration in his work, while he presented himself as an independent commentator.

Gallagher got paid to write language for government publications and educate (mis-, in my opinion) government officials about an issue.

Armstrong was a conduit to convey the admin's line to the public. Gallagher conveyed her own opinion to the government.

As she said, she really should have disclosed her consulting when the wrote about the topic, and the admin's policies related to it. But the two cases are not the same at all. One it, at worst, a failure to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the other is actual gross impropriety.

[Andy]

And this is different from the Democrats....how?
The legacy media is the Democrats lapdogs, so they just did the same stuff for free.

[Nelson]

Haha! Your moral values are showing.

[Jennifer]

And this is different from the Democrats....how?
The legacy media is the Democrats lapdogs, so they just did the same stuff for free.

Because many people, especially righteous conservative types, have more respect for sluts than for whores.

[cdunlea]

And this is different from the Democrats....how?
The legacy media is the Democrats lapdogs, so they just did the same stuff for free"

I see you answered your own question.

[joe]

"The legacy media is the Democrats lapdogs, so they just did the same stuff for free."

First, there's the money, as Jennifer so ably presents it.

But second, there is a difference between writing your opinions and having someone in government agree with you, and coordinating with the government to reproduce the party line, and present it as your original work.

[thoreau]

Yesterday I suggested to joe that Robert Byrd was not worth defending. I also criticized Diane Feinstein for her proposed regulation of cold medicine.

In light of these new revelations, I am reinstating my moratorium on criticizing Democrats until the White House offers fair pay for those who bash their enemies. This is a matter of economic justice, and I encourage anybody who dislikes the Democrats to show solidarity by refraining from crossing my picket line.

And if you do decide to criticize a Democrat, be prepared for some tough guys from the Teamsters to pay you a visit! 😉

[Gary Gunnels]

Why do Republicans have to pay people to agree with them? 🙂

[gawdamman]

Who says that the leftist/commie media doesn't get paid by the democrats?

[isildur]

Honestly, the only thing to care about here is 'Hey, that's my money they're giving to those people!'

Other than that, I honestly don't care; I'm going to judge anything I read by its contents, not the motivation of the author in writing it.

I'd prefer if my money weren't being spent on this, but I also would prefer that my money wasn't being spent by ONDCP on PSAs full of deceptions and outright lies, so this doesn't particularly trigger any special loathing.

[BLG]

"And this is different from the Democrats....how?"

I love this line of argument. It boils down to what my 12-year-old would say: "Well, Polly is doing it ... " I'm not sure if you would characterize it as 'passing the buck' or just plain evasion, but equating your actions to the actions of others and then using that connection as justification is pretty thin stuff.

As a response, it actually contains more damning information that not. It's basically another way of saying "Yup, there is absolutely no justification, moral, ethical, or otherwise for what is coming to light. Therefore, we shall deflect attention to something in an attempt to derail the conversation and save ourselves from being exposed for what we really are."

Just my two cents

[Ken Shultz]

When the government pays the Fourth Estate to manufacture propaganda for its own purposes, and the Fourth Estate doesn't 'fess up--that bothers me.

I'm not sure that paying certain journalists to keep it on the DL would bother me so much--and maybe that's something private interest groups should look into.

...I'd be willing to throw a few bucks into the pot. How much could it take to get Krugman to shut up for a while?

[Junyo]

And this is different from the Democrats....how?
The legacy media is the Democrats lapdogs, so they just did the same stuff for free.
Because when Democrats are partisan hacks it's for the greater good. When Republicans do it it's for oil or Jesus. So:

Republicans on the take = unacceptable
Begala and Carville working for the Kerry campaign while on air on CNN = okay

It's like how the SwiftVets were evil because they opposed Kerry, and their illegal complicity was demonstrated when it was revealed that a Bush relection commitee lawyer had done some legal work for them. On the other hand, the fact that the Deputy General Counsel for the DNC was the contact of record for MoveOn.org was a non-issue. As was the fact that one of Kerry's campaign Lawyers was also woking for 527 America Coming Together. See, apparently you didn't get the memo; Republicans are evil, and any action they take has the basest of motives. Democrats on the other hand, are the source of truth and light. God, it's like you don't get your news from Jon Stewart or something.

[joe]

"Who says that the leftist/commie media doesn't get paid by the democrats?"

I actually picked up a copy of "The Daily Worker" last week, and they don't seem to be too fond of the Democrats.

(Sees the frozen snot in gawdaman's beard, sees the pile of hand typed pamphlets in his hand, backs away slowly while smiling and nodding in a friendly manner).

[thePeaNutGallery]

Jennifer at January 28, 2005 01:36 PM
Because many people, especially righteous conservative types, have more respect for sluts than for whores.

?is that because one is paid for services, while the other offers their services free?

[BLG]

Junyo,

As per my response to Andy, what do your comments have to do with the substance of the discussion? Is there any ACTUAL justification for the Bush propaganda machine other than "well, 'they' are just as bad"? If so I'd be willing to listen.

[[e-mail]]

BLG at January 28, 2005 02:17 PMJ
just my two cents

and your 2cents sir being as valuable as my 2cents, and any other posters here 2cents.
except for sarcarm, (see below) worth 0cents, nada, net rupels (russian for zero), nuttin'.

Junyo at January 28, 2005 03:03 PM
See, apparently you didn't get the memo; Republicans are evil, and any action they take has the basest of motives. Democrats on the other hand, are the source of truth and light. God, it's like you don't get your news from Jon Stewart or something.
this is Rep sarcasm, no!!!!

[Mo]

Junyo,
Uh, we knew about that stuff ahead of time instead of a year afterwards. There's nothing wrong with whoring (except on my dime of course), it's the non-disclosure that's the issue. Well, that and they Johns are using my money.

[atomicsoda]

"Who says that the leftist/commie media doesn't get paid by the democrats?"

Who is that. Do you mean the corporate conglomerate media of Viacom, Clear Channel, Time Warner and Fox.

[Eric the .5b]

Is there any ACTUAL justification for the Bush propaganda machine other than "well, 'they' are just as bad"?

Why am I required to freak out in particular when some guys took government money and wrote supportive BS about a Republican program when there are loads of government agencies that give money to policy organizations like think tanks and enviromental groups - who are then hardly inclined to say those agencies deserve less money?

[Ken Shultz]

Were Begala and Carville less than forthcoming about working for the Kerry campaign when they were on CNN? Has Stewart been less than candid about his bias?

P.S. Much of Stewart's show is sketch comedy--you know that, right?

[JSM]

When the government pays the Fourth Estate to manufacture propaganda for its own purposes, and the Fourth Estate doesn't 'fess up--that bothers me.

I'm with Ken whether it be democrat or republican, and even more so if its libertarian! Its not right and the feet need to be held to the fire.

[Eric the .5b]

I'm with Ken whether it be democrat or republican, and even more so if its libertarian!

I'm trying to imagine that last...and failing. 🙂

[Eric the .5b]

Personally, I'm curious who thought it would be clever to pay pundits to pimp Bush's marriage proposal, of all his programs...

[rst]

Good points. However, isn't money speech?

[Eric the .5b]

Yeah, but I generally don't want to made to pay for other people speech. 🙂

[Junyo]

BLG;
There's no need to "justify" the Bush "propaganda machine". This is less than a non-issue. Wow, you mean people that get paid to talk/write for a living actually accepted money to speak/write about specific things? The horror, the horror. Did they pay these people to lie? To invent facts? To present the information as news rather than commentary? Did they get extra cash for killing opposing columnists? Did they even pay these people to state opinions different from what they already personally held to be true? If they didn't, what measurable effect does the extra 1099 have on the quality of the columnist's writing, logic, or lack thereof? But he didn't disclose... And if he had? Again, what measurable effect does that have on the quality of the columnist's writing, logic, or lack thereof? It's a popular thing now to dismiss data by association, but logically flawed. If a guy says the sky is blue, the objective fact and any conclusions reached from that fact don't change just because he happens to work for the Blue Sky Corp.

Brian Williams goes on the air and announces that cheese cures cancer and I find out tomorrow that he's getting checks from the National Dairy Council; yeah, that's a problem. He purports to be an objective and impartial actor. That, and cheese makes me gassy. But if you don't understand that the vast majority of the world of punditry are speaking to their interests then you're helplesly naive.

[Jennifer]

Peanut-
Nice girls do it for love, not money.

[Shem]

To present the information as news rather than commentary?

Well, there was that unpleasant business where the White House produced those "news segments" that were blatantly supportive of the prescription drug program and then disseminated them to news stations, who then preceded to play them as actual news. If they're getting caught at this, what else are they doing?

[rst]

Yeah, but I generally don't want to made to pay for other people speech.

But you do, with nearly every item on an appropriations bill.

Journalists are generally whores, but whoring in its literal sense is a profession many here would prefer legalized. The difference, however, is if you won't pay the whore she probably will not fuck you.

Were these pundits intending to speaking out against NCLB, etc., and then the money changed their minds? Or were they favorable towards White House policy already and given a fee to spend time focusing on specific points therein? Was it scripted? Was non-disclosure a condition of the deal, or was it the pundits who felt too embarrassed to admit what they had agreed to?

White House produced those "news segments"

Ironically, drugs make the government act funny.

[Eric the .5b]

Shem: They're doing a lot, but something similar would be the practice of cutting and pasting press releases into reports.

[Eric the .5b]

Yeah, but I generally don't want to made to pay for other people speech.

But you do, with nearly every item on an appropriations bill.

Gee, that might be part of why I don't think highly of appropriations bills.

[Ken Shultz]

"Good points. However, isn't money speech?"

I don't think anyone proposed a law to deal with this. As far as I can tell, we're talking about the extent to which this was wrong--it's a moral thing.

...I know that can be very controversial.

"But he didn't disclose... And if he had? Again, what measurable effect does that have on the quality of the columnist's writing, logic, or lack thereof?"

I imagine myself going to a financial planner. He advises me that I should buy a new home. Much later, I find out by accident that the whole time, he was really working for a home mortgage lender--the very one he had me use.

...Maybe the financial planner gave me the best deal out there anyway, but I don't see why that matters--he should have told me who he was working for, and let me make my decision with that in mind.

[JJB]

I went to McManus' Marriage Savers organization's website (http://www.marriagesavers.org/). I can't find anything on the guy's background, such as an "About Us" section listing the background of the Executives running the organization. It appears that he's a minister of some Christian denomination, but again, there's no specific background that I could find. I don't like when organizations are intentionally vague on their websites about what they do and who they are, and this McManus organization is no exception.

So the government is paying $10k to a minister to promote a government marriage initiative. This so clearly violates the separation of church and state that it's repulsive.

[BLG]

Junyo,

There most certainly IS a need to justify the Bush propaganda machine, and it very-much is an issue. Indeed, considering this to be 'in the noise' is the naive viewpoint because it points to much deeper motives/problems within the Bush administration and their efforts to darken the windows into government. Recall that it is not that a pundit got paid to state an opinion, it is that he got paid BY THE GOVERNMENT to state an opinion IN SUPPORT OF THAT GOVERNMENT.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the so-called 'quality' of the columnists logic nor is anyone 'dismissing' data due to associations. This has to do entirely with the misuse of public money and public trust. It is another in a long line of such mis-uses by this administration and I, for one, am growing tired of them.

"Did they get extra cash for killing opposing columnists?"

Don't be fatuous.

[thoreau]

Indeed, considering this to be 'in the noise' is the naive viewpoint because it points to much deeper motives/problems within the Bush administration and their efforts to darken the windows into government.

Exactly!

The people on this forum need to remember that some day there will be a Democrat in the White House. And that Democrat will inherit the structures that George Bush created.

[DnB]

BLG: ".... Recall that it is not that a pundit got paid to state an opinion, it is that he got paid BY THE GOVERNMENT to state an opinion IN SUPPORT OF THAT GOVERNMENT."

Yeah, sorta, but what really happened was: He got paid BY THE GOVERNMENT to state an opinion that he already held IN SUPPORT OF THAT GOVERNMENT that he already supported.

I'm not so worried about the outcomes thus far uncovered, but I am definitely concerned with the government pissing away the money they extort from me in this manner.

[Junyo]

BLG:
So this is about "the misuse of public money and public trust"? Which president was it that paid for all his expenses out of pocket again? Oh yeah, none of them. I'm assuming that I can bill the Clintons for every press conference held about Hillary's stillborn health care initiative and Monica, that I can recoup from Nancy Reagan all the moneys spent on the "Just Say No" campaign? Presidents spend money to promote their agendas, whether that money is spent on jet fuel flying around the country for photo ops and speeches, or on maintaining a press secretary and speech writing staff, or on maintaining the press room in the White House. "They got paid BY THE GOVERNMENT to state an opinion IN SUPPORT OF THAT GOVERNMENT." Guess what? SO DO OTHER PEOPLE. From the handpicked members of the press corp that get first class flights and M&Ms with the Presidential seal on Air Force One, to the "exclusive interview", do you actually believe that a)those favors have no financial value, and b)they're not given out to influence the coverage of the current administration? And those are given directly to journalists, not columnists. It's been happening forever, and everyone's fine with it except when the other guy's doing it. If the argument about misuse was based on lack of effectiveness I might buy it, but it's not and compared to the bang/buck of programs like "Just Say No", there's even a good possibility that the current administration's method was more cost effective considering what it would've cost the President in time and travel to get his message out to the same number of people; $10K is pocket change. Again, the only reason why this is an isue is the irrational hatred of Bush; if he did it, it must be wrong.

[Jennifer]

Junyo-
If you support a free market, doesn't that refer to the marketplace of ideas as well? If Bush's ideas are so fabulous, there should be people willing to support them WITHOUT being paid subsidies to do so.

You really see no problem with an ostensibly free press turning into paid shills for the government? Without even telling people that they're getting paid to write their columns? As Thoreau pointed out, sooner or later the White House will be taken by people you DON'T support. And you won't mind them taking your tax dollars to pay journalists to write in support of whatever it is you find loathsome?

I have a feeling if this sort of thing had come out during the Clinton administration you'd be blowing a gasket over it. Considering your ability to twist things around to suit you, I imagine you could pursue a lucrative career in the pretzel-making industry.

[BLG]

Junyo,

Good Lord man, you were doing pretty well right up there until the end. A very well-reasoned argument, and then the clincher; the so-called 'irrational' hatred of Bush.

As to the substance of your argument, it's just another variation on the 'they did it, so that makes it right for us to do it' theme, and I just don't buy it. As to specifics, first of all there's the plainly obvious difference that press conferences and the like happen in the open air, and no one would fault a chief executive for trying to rally support behind their agendas. In fact, that sort of thing is not only expected, but pretty well necessary to the sucess of the leader because he/she has to get people rallied behind their program(s). Reagan did this sort of thing profoundly well.

Secondly, and I just don't think that you see this, there's the pure deceit that the Bush administration operates with and these things coming to light are yet more examples of that bahavior.

I agree with you that there are people who just hate Bush. He's just that kind of guy. But to blindly dismiss accusations made towards him, and blame them on 'irrational hatred' is to do the very thing that you accused others of. To dismiss based on association, and as you so rightly pointed out, that's logically flawed.

[thoreau]

To me, here's what it comes down to:

The press is allegedly independent. It may not be neutral, but it is allegedly there to represent the facts as the reporters, or pundits, or editors, or owners, see them. Yes, I know, everybody here hates the MSM. Anyway, supposedly the press is an agent of itself, not a wholly-owned subsidiary of the White House.

This is an attempt to bring some of the press under the umbrella of the White House without disclosing it. Don't you see where this could easily lead? When a politician's press secretary spews some nonsense, we at least know it's a press secretary and we can safely ignore every word of it. But when an allegedly independent agent becomes a paid pawn of the White House, that starts to sound a little bit like China, where they have a state-run media and whatnot.

Go ahead, call me shrill and irrational and paranoid for making analogies with China. Go ahead and point out that not all slopes are slippery. I still think it's a really bad idea to even take a few steps in that direction. A neutral press may be an impossible dream (cough, Dan Rather, cough), but an independent press is at least something we can hope for.

[TWC]

I mean come on guys, this is not news. What exactly do you think goes on and has gone on for years, decades? It's politics, it's all payola, it's not new, it's a yawn.

Oh, MY STARS! A politician uses tax money to promote pet programs, lissen dawg, that's never happened until the dummy from Texas figured out how to do it.

With the exception of Reason, Cato, IJ, and a few others EVERY organization and individual who can get the graft is taking it. Some spout the Bush Party Line and some don't.

One more argument for my thesis that you should give the government as little as possible.

[twc]

There are literally tens of thousands of people and organizations sucking off the public teat in the forms of grants and contracts with dozens to hundreds of government agencies. While a couple of these incidences are fairly conclusive, they are neither new or unique. Several of these payola scams (and aren't they all payola scams?) are a bit of a stretch, really amounting to people who already are writing/thinking the party line exercising their god given rights to stand in line for the welfare check.

[thoreau]

TWC-

OK, fair enough, everybody is doing it.

Still, an independent press (notice I didn't say impartial, just independent) is generally considered crucial to the healthy functioning of representative government. Bush has not only put a few more people on the dole, he's done it in a manner that can cause harm disproportionate to the amount of money spent. Giving $ to some pork project that isn't all that crucial to the functioning of our society is bad. Shelling out that cash to undermine the independence of a vital institution is another thing.

At the very least, I don't want to hear anybody claiming that the Republicans are anything to cheer about in the next election. If nothing else they're expanding the number of people on the dole. And they're doing it in a manner that's arguably more dangerous than most such spending.

[thoreau]

Thought experiment: What if the next Iraqi leader puts some journalists on the dole. How many will worry about the future of Iraqi democracy?

I guess that a lot of people here won't be able to complain because

1) Bush is doing the same thing, so it can't be all that bad.
2) Suggesting that the future of Iraqi democracy might be dubious would imply that the Bush's Grand Project isn't going so well.

[js]

As to the argument that Williams would have supported the government policies even if not paid. Well but then the question always becomes what IS THE MONEY FOR THEN?

[BLG]

js,
Brilliant!

thoreau,
Not bad for a physicist!

[Jennifer]

A lot of conservative columnists are decrying this trend as well, and calling on those who ARE on the dole to come clean now, rather than wait to be exposed. Publications like National Review are re-doing their writer's contracts to ban such hidden economic relationships in the future. These are die-hard right-wingers who can't possibly be accused of being anti-Bush or opposed to his policies.

To those of you who say this is no big deal, could you explain to me why Jonah Goldberg and the like are opposed to this, too? I mean, these folks are hardly Clintonistas or Michael Moore fans; after making a lifetime and a career out of successfully resisting the allure of left-wing propaganda, I doubt they'd capitulate now, for no good reason.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

Good point! It should also be noted that it can't just be because they fear looking bad in the eyes of the libruhl media. Some of these people used "Merry Christmas" as an epithet a month and a half ago. Nothing is more curmudgeonly than taking a cheerful greeting and using it to cast scorn. These people take pride in looking bad!

Yet they're still upset over pundit payola. Maybe they think it's a bad thing for some reason...