Posted on 01/09/2005 8:29:13 AM PST by madfly
This General Accounting Office report on the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s propaganda activities has some info (legal citations omitted here -- if you want them, follow the link above):
"No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress."Our research indicates that Congress has imposed this same prohibition, using identical language, on the use of all appropriations for publicity or propaganda purposes annually since 1951. So far, Congress has not defined the phrase "publicity or propaganda." Over the years, we have struggled to give meaning to this limitation while simultaneously balancing the right and duty of agencies to inform the public regarding their activities and programs. We have previously identified a number of activities that are subject to this restriction, including covert propaganda and self-aggrandizement.
One of the activities banned under the publicity or propaganda prohibition involves what is referred to as covert propaganda, that is, an agency's production and distribution of materials that do not identify the agency, or indeed the government, as their source, thereby misleading those who refer to these materials. For example, in 1987, the State Department violated the prohibition when it paid consultants to prepare and publish newspaper articles and op-ed pieces supporting the administration's Central America policy, and presented these materials "as the ostensible position of persons not associated with the government." These publications violated the restriction because they were "misleading as to their origin."
Sounds a bit similar to the Armstrong case, no?
Now, I’m not sure what the GAO or Congress as a whole can do, other than embarrass the administration and tell them to cut it out. But an investigation is certainly warranted.
Also, it’s hardly likely that this is an isolated incident. Who else is on the government payroll? They may want to come clean before the witch-hunt.
And, lastly, shouldn’t Williams give the money back?
Almost all media outside the US to include the BBC is state run.
Red6
Correct, and this is the right way to make this kind of money more expensive than it is worth.
Joking, right?
Yes, they should get positive media coverage for free like the Marxists do. The present system isn't fair. ;-)
ala Swiftboat Veterans for the Truth
In the first place, it wasn't the "Bush administration". The Dept of Ed hired a marketing firm to help the dept produce commercials in support of the NCLB Act - the marketing firm in turn hired Williams to help promote the issue.
Williams should have disclosed that - he didn't. He didn't disclose that because he already favored the NCLB Act and was willing to help promote it.
This is nothing more than another opportunity for the SLIMY media to diss the President and his admin.
In Germany: ARD, ZDF, HR3, SWF, DW...... (German TV and radio) Chief executives (Chef Redaktuer) are politically affiliated and hand picked by a committee which the ruling parties chair. MOST the media is state controlled to a large degree when compared to the US. DPA (Deutsche Presse Agentur) like our AP and UPI is heavily state influenced. You have a tax collected on all TV and radios there. If you buy a TV you have to pay a tax and this goes to the state run media but also the state controls the money flow. In Germany you have a very heavily state influenced media. Once the central government decided the war in Iraq was wrong, all the media quickly came on line.
The French government owns a large part of the media in their country. You will soon get a free news channel in the US; brought to you by the French government and a Euro 30,000,000 start up assistance from them. This is to help you have a French “perception” on things; see it from their side a little better. While they will have commercials etc and seem private, the start up seed money was from the state. You would be naïve to think that this channel does not have government agenda.
I used the BBC as an example. It may not be a good one, since there are privates out there too. Ironically, AL Jazzier is one! But even the BBC “probably” has state influence or start up or some of their CEOs selected by the state. Though BBC is funded from advertising, few to none out there are real and complete private firms like FOX or CNN. Few countries have a media like in the US. Once you get into the weeds you see that the government does influence things, often in a round about way. Germany is a perfect example. I’m not an expert on BBC so I can’t really say with certainty. I must backpedal if you ask for concrete evidence with the BBC, but with the German channels, I can give you a break down and how the state plays along.
The bottom line is simple though. The US is very unique in its media; state ownership or control thereof, freedom of speech etc. Even among the West you will find few who are truly private without the state running in the background somehow.
Red6
I read that too. I'm still hoping to find out what specifically the contract says, not what some news reporter says it says.
I know the contract did include specific one-minute PSA spots, but I really don't know if there was more included, or if our wonderfully non-biased MSM is twisting the story to make it look far worse than it is.
Where do I get my NPR/PBS lollipop? Taxpayer $$$$$$$$ for the NEA? Yep
If 99% of the progrossive media had not been freely putting out propaganda against NCLB, the paid ads explaining it would not have been nessessary.
I agree, it wasn't upfront and he seemed to know it in his interview with O'Reilly
Nope, I own a small business journal
Well then there's a good chance for growth in your case then ;)
Sure, but I could buy a lot of computers and equipment for $240K, not to mention covering my payroll. Heck, I could hire several new people for that amount.
True, true
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.