Propagandagate
What does it take to create a political scandal?
A) Engaging in covert propaganda
B) Breaking federal law
C) Misusing public funds
D) Planting ringers in press conferences
E) None of the above
If you answered "E," pat yourself on the back. Apparently, it doesn't matter if our nation's top executives engage in unethical, dishonest or downright illegal activities, as long as the opposition party is a minority in Congress. The events surrounding "Propagandagate" seem to confirm this disappointing theory. If you haven't been following closely, let's recap the past several months:
It all began last fall, when the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services released several "news-style" videos promoting No Child Left Behind and Medicare reform. The controversial part was that the videos weren't marked as being government-produced. Because of this, the General Accounting Office found the agencies guilty of engaging in "covert propaganda," as defined by the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003.
In January, we found out the two aforementioned departments had secretly paid journalists to tout Bush initiatives. HHS paid Maggie Gallagher and Mike McManus various sums to promote the White House's "pro-marriage" plan, and the Education Department paid Armstrong Williams to endorse NCLB. Whether McManus and Gallagher's columns broke federal "payola" laws has yet to be decided, but Williams, whose commentary was broadcast as well as printed, has doubtlessly violated FCC Communications Act sections 317, 507 and 508, which require disclosure when a broadcaster has been paid to endorse something.
While we're talking about scandals involving the Education Department and NCLB, let's not forget how it paid $700,000 to the PR firm Ketchum Inc., to rate journalists on how positively or negatively they covered the law. Some might call this a misuse of public funds. Others might call it ... well OK, however you cut it, it's pretty much a case of misusing public funds.
Most recently, James Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon, has been outed (pardon the pun) as a gay male escort/GOP operative posing as a homophobic, uber-Christian, White House correspondent. Besides using a fake name, Guckert was also a fake reporter working for a fake news publication.
Even though he was lobbing softball questions to GOP officials for two years, government officials and his boss (who is a Republican activist) deny that Guckert/Gannon was working as a ringer. Guckert himself says he used the alias "Jeff Gannon," not to hide his real identity, but because his real name, James Guckert, was too difficult to pronounce. Stop laughing, he's serious. He, his boss and White House press secretary Scott McClellan all maintain it's perfectly normal for reporters to use pseudonyms. Maybe, but when was the last time they invited Miss Manners to a press conference?
Despite everything, there's talk that nothing will result from any of this. As the New Yorker explained in its "Nothinggate" article:
What all the memorable scandals of the past thirty year...have had in common is that the opposition party controlled at least one house of Congress, which gave it the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas. If Bush ends up having an easier time of it in his second term than any of his two-term predecessors since F.D.R., it won't be because the scandals aren't there. It'll be because the tools to excavate them are under lock and key.
Apparently, the press is saying only Democrats can hold Republicans responsible for unethical or illegal activities (and vice versa). That means if the partisan opposition isn't saying it, it must not be worth saying. But this line of reasoning forgets that sometimes neither party will broach certain issues when they're deemed too "politically risky." The unwillingness to scrutinize evidence justifying the Iraq invasion is a recent example with grave consequences.
And if the opposition is the Congressional minority, is the majority free to flout the law because nobody has the authority to hold them accountable? One could answer that all politicians must answer to the people at election time, but how can we make knowledgeable decisions if the media isn't asking tough questions? Our press needs to ask itself if it wants to cover elected officials or simply take dictation from them. For our sake, let's hope they decide soon.
A) Engaging in covert propaganda
B) Breaking federal law
C) Misusing public funds
D) Planting ringers in press conferences
E) None of the above
If you answered "E," pat yourself on the back. Apparently, it doesn't matter if our nation's top executives engage in unethical, dishonest or downright illegal activities, as long as the opposition party is a minority in Congress. The events surrounding "Propagandagate" seem to confirm this disappointing theory. If you haven't been following closely, let's recap the past several months:
It all began last fall, when the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services released several "news-style" videos promoting No Child Left Behind and Medicare reform. The controversial part was that the videos weren't marked as being government-produced. Because of this, the General Accounting Office found the agencies guilty of engaging in "covert propaganda," as defined by the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003.
In January, we found out the two aforementioned departments had secretly paid journalists to tout Bush initiatives. HHS paid Maggie Gallagher and Mike McManus various sums to promote the White House's "pro-marriage" plan, and the Education Department paid Armstrong Williams to endorse NCLB. Whether McManus and Gallagher's columns broke federal "payola" laws has yet to be decided, but Williams, whose commentary was broadcast as well as printed, has doubtlessly violated FCC Communications Act sections 317, 507 and 508, which require disclosure when a broadcaster has been paid to endorse something.
While we're talking about scandals involving the Education Department and NCLB, let's not forget how it paid $700,000 to the PR firm Ketchum Inc., to rate journalists on how positively or negatively they covered the law. Some might call this a misuse of public funds. Others might call it ... well OK, however you cut it, it's pretty much a case of misusing public funds.
Most recently, James Guckert, AKA Jeff Gannon, has been outed (pardon the pun) as a gay male escort/GOP operative posing as a homophobic, uber-Christian, White House correspondent. Besides using a fake name, Guckert was also a fake reporter working for a fake news publication.
Even though he was lobbing softball questions to GOP officials for two years, government officials and his boss (who is a Republican activist) deny that Guckert/Gannon was working as a ringer. Guckert himself says he used the alias "Jeff Gannon," not to hide his real identity, but because his real name, James Guckert, was too difficult to pronounce. Stop laughing, he's serious. He, his boss and White House press secretary Scott McClellan all maintain it's perfectly normal for reporters to use pseudonyms. Maybe, but when was the last time they invited Miss Manners to a press conference?
Despite everything, there's talk that nothing will result from any of this. As the New Yorker explained in its "Nothinggate" article:
What all the memorable scandals of the past thirty year...have had in common is that the opposition party controlled at least one house of Congress, which gave it the power to hold hearings and issue subpoenas. If Bush ends up having an easier time of it in his second term than any of his two-term predecessors since F.D.R., it won't be because the scandals aren't there. It'll be because the tools to excavate them are under lock and key.
Apparently, the press is saying only Democrats can hold Republicans responsible for unethical or illegal activities (and vice versa). That means if the partisan opposition isn't saying it, it must not be worth saying. But this line of reasoning forgets that sometimes neither party will broach certain issues when they're deemed too "politically risky." The unwillingness to scrutinize evidence justifying the Iraq invasion is a recent example with grave consequences.
And if the opposition is the Congressional minority, is the majority free to flout the law because nobody has the authority to hold them accountable? One could answer that all politicians must answer to the people at election time, but how can we make knowledgeable decisions if the media isn't asking tough questions? Our press needs to ask itself if it wants to cover elected officials or simply take dictation from them. For our sake, let's hope they decide soon.
1 Comments:
This is the greatest abuse of power since Nixon, and the way things are going we we soon be dropping the qualifier.
Post a Comment
<< E-Liberal Home