CSM: Bush administration blurs media boundary

WASHINGTON - First came video "news releases" produced by the Bush administration using a TV news format. Then came three conservative columnists who got big paychecks from federal agencies. Now, there's Jeff Gannon (not his real name), a journalist (maybe) who gained surprisingly easy access to the president, only to lob a sympathetically slanted question.

No evidence has surfaced that Mr. Gannon was directed by the White House, but the circumstances ignited a debate over the inner workings of the White House press room.

Presidents from George Washington on down have struggled with a news corps viewed as hostile. And in the age of television, the art of message management has been increasingly vital to the modern presidency.

But taken together, these recent controversies suggest that the Bush administration may be pushing that craft into new territory - and testing the limits of presidential public relations.

"The public has a reason to be concerned about the ways in which political manipulation is influencing journalism," says Larry Gross at the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Southern California.

Of course, the line between salesmanship and manipulation can be blurry. The White House's ability to stay "on message" has won respect even from its critics, albeit grudgingly. At the same time, other moves by the administration have raised concern.

In January came news that commentator Armstrong Williams, a syndicated broadcast host, had received a $240,000 payment from the Education Department to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. On a lesser scale, commentators Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus were paid $21,500 and $10,200, respectively, to advise the Department of Health and Human Services (news - web sites) on its marriage initiatives. Unlike Williams, neither were paid explicitly to promote White House policy in their columns.

A 2004 video produced by the Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Department to promote the administration's new Medicare prescription drug law ended with the tagline in journalese: "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

A number of local TV stations aired this spot and others produced by federal agencies, without disclosing their source.

Last May, the General Accounting Office (news - web sites) ruled that the prepackaged news report segment violated a law prohibiting the use of federal funds for propaganda because it did not identify the government as the source of the news report.

It is unclear whether such activities occurred with any sanction from within the White House. In the wake of the publicity about Mr. Williams, President Bush (news - web sites) has disavowed the practice of paying journalists. "All our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying ... commentators to advance our agenda," he said. The Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) is investigating the payment to Williams.

Still, the climate of the administration has been one of growing public relations initiatives. Since President Bush took office, contracts for public relations work with the federal government have jumped from $39 million to $88.2 million last year, according to a report by Democratic staff of the House Government Reform Committee (news - web sites). These contracts cover everything from promoting the newly revised food pyramid to funding major initiatives from schools to Social Security (news - web sites).

The Bush administration isn't the first to pay journalists to promote their causes. President Jefferson hired journalist James Callender to attack his rival John Adams, only to have Callender later turn on him with reports that he had fathered a child with his slave, Sally Hemings.

The classic presidential tack for managing the news is to shut off access to journalists. Deeply frustrated by the coverage of the Watergate scandal, President Nixon directed his staff to ban any representative from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, Newsweek, CBS, and a UPI reporter from the press pool - an order his staff largely ignored. But during the 2004 campaign, a New York Times reporter assigned to cover Vice President Cheney was routinely excluded from the press plane.

And adversarial relations with the media aren't limited to Washington, D.C. In Maryland, a federal judge ruled Monday that Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) can bar state employees from talking to two reporters for the Baltimore Sun - a move described by Sun editors as "scary."

"Over the past several years, the Bush administration has learned that it can engage the press in an adversarial way, and the public won't mind. It's yet another step in managed news," says Tom Hollihan, another journalism expert at USC's Annenberg School.

These include screening the people who attend meetings that appear to have a town-hall format, and bypassing the national media to go directly to local media where, he says, "there are more softball questions."

In a preemptive move last month, senior House Democrats called on the White House to halt "use of propaganda" to push the president's plan to create private or personal accounts in Social Security. Democrats are requesting all materials created for radio, TV, or newspapers and other venues to promote the plan.

"There is a pattern of propaganda by the Bush administration that must be stopped," said House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

The Gannon case raises the tougher question of who gets to be a journalist. In Washington, credentialing standards vary among the different branches of government. Gannon, who wrote for the GOP-linked Talon News website, was first criticized by liberal Internet bloggers, who objected to the pro-administration slant in his questions, such as "...How are you going to work with [Democrats] who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

Turned down for a congressional press pass because he did not meet the standards set for a journalist, James Guckert (Gannon's real name) has had access to the White House briefing room for more than two years on day passes. "Many seasoned journalists have not had the honor of attending the events or enjoying the access Mr. Guckert has," said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D) of New York. This week she asked for release of information on Gannon's credentialing.

There is no "boundary". Jefferson and Hamilton both started newspapers to flail at each other. The President has a perfect right to push his policies. Every President had some members of the press that were sympathetic to him -- some more than others.

The only part I really object to is using taxpayer money to buy commentators. That's horrible.

Ive about had a bellyfull of this Gannon bullcrap. they have maybe 40 Journalists at White House briefings and all except one is a Bush basher. Bush gets one guy in there and they crap their pants.

This story just keeps getting more ridiculous. The DNC basically owns the "Mainstream" news media, they pump out Democrat talking points 24/7 and we are to be concerned about "propaganda" from the White House?

Where were these folks when we were subjected to the daily lovefest between Bill Clinton and the liberal Democrat news media?

I'm not willing to give up on this Gannon guy, yet. So far, all I see is that he's been badly embarrassed. I also think this is an opportunity to show that conservatives want to protect everyone's rights without creating new rights for a privileged "lifestyle" class. I resent highly this hypocrisy and viciousness by the "tolerant" liberals. We all knew that Brock was homosexual when he wrote for our side.

There's a lot more to the Gannon issue than the access issue. My guess is that the Congress people are getting involved in the Gannon story because they think that they can tie him to the Valerie Plame investigation, as the original source of the Plame expose, and force a separate investigation that would circumvent the current investigation which is stalled due to the appeal of the NYT reporters who are refusing to testify. The Daily KOS people think that they can tie Gannon to Rove through Eberle and that it their whole motive, to take down Rove.

I was concerned about this throughout the Clinton administraion years, as the MSM turned a blind eye towards their bias that was recycling of Clintonoid spin.

Credible reports are that the media was VASTLY more negative towards Bush and more positive towards Kerry last year.

The MSM worried about excessive conservative/Bush influence in the MSM is like an obese compulsive eater worrying about dying of famine.

"The Daily KOS people think that they can tie Gannon to Rove through Eberle and that it their whole motive, to take down Rove."

That's psychadelic in its delusion ... powerful joints Kos is smoking lately... who's his dealer?

I recall Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe saying that Algore attended an Editorial Board meeting where he suggested that the Boring Broadsheet put Jacoby on ice until after the 2000 election. The Globe suspended Jacoby for writing a 4th of July op/ed on the risk that the Founding fathers faced by putting thier asses on the line. How's that for manipulation?

"The DNC basically owns the "Mainstream" news media, they pump out Democrat talking points 24/7"

Dang near word-for-word, too.

SO when are they going to do the story about Carville working for the Kerry campaign and still showing up on CNN?

I like how this dimwit Chaddock has to go back to Jefferson and Hamilton when she claims "Bush isn't the first..."

I guess she doesn't remember, or want to remember, or want us to remember,

THE TRULY INCESTUOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CLINTON WHITE AHOUSE AND THE PRESS!!

Dear Gail Chaddock, How did little Stephie Stephanopolis get his job at ABC??

I love the fact that KOS is the internet link for Dr. Dean. It gives such an interesting snapshot of where the Democrat party is right now and where it is headed. Even Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are trying to distance themselves from it. It makes me wonder if the strategy isn't to let Dean keep the left happy and on board, while Reid and Pelosi try to fool the rest of the voters into thinking that the party is really moving toward the right.

I laugh to myself every time I see Reid on TV. He looks half dead and Pelosi looks like a ghoul who risen from the dead.

I went and visited the Kos (ick) site. I generally hate to because that gives that creep hits.

What exactly is going on with this Gannon story?

There've been other conservative writers that are homosexual. I'm not celebrating the fact, but it's a fact. Brock is homosexual--and we knew it when we read what he had to write. We just didn't care to think about his proclivities. I still don't care to. He hangs around on creepy homosexual sites? Big shock...like the Internet doesn't make millions for homo and hetero sites.

And he's a non-credentialed journalist? Like, what are journalistic credentials, anyway? Conservative journalists generally have Mommy is the business (Kristol, Podhoretz, Goldberg...)--that's more irritating than no credentials at all.

His questions to Bush exhibited a non-liberal sympathy? Now, here's the real gripe...and if the left manages to demolish Gannon, they'll know they can go after anybody.

I think we ought to try to get Gannon back in the game.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.