Paying-off Journalists?
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Paying-off Journalists?
Oh what a surprise.....
CBS news
A syndicated newspaper columnist received at least $4,000 from the Department of Health and Human Services for work in support of President Bush's effort to promote marriage, USA Today reports.
Mike McManus is the third commentator to receive money from a federal agency to boost Bush policy initiatives. The newspaper said McManus got the money to train marriage mentors....
USA Today also said Marriage Savers, a non-profit organization operated by McManus, received $49,000 from a group that receives HHS money to promote marriage to unwed couples who are having children...
News of the McManus contract follows the disclosure that syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher was being paid $21,500 by HHS to push the White House's $300 million initiative to encourage marriage....
Columnist and commentator Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 by the Education Department to plug Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation. That contract became known two weeks ago....
"This abuse by HHS is just another in a long list of similar incidents of paid policy advocates supporting Bush Administration policies," the senators wrote.
Also Wednesday, the House Committee on Government Reform released a report on the use of taxpayer dollars for public relations campaigns. It found the administration spent a record $88 million on government-funded public relations contracts in 2004 — more than double the amount spent in 2000, according to the report prepared for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democrats....
Go to the link and you can read the whole story and there are many more links out there about this.
Using government funds for publicity or propaganda
is against the law.. We are all sheep and willing to jump on any band wagon that they want to throw at us. And don't say you wouldn't, how many people were freaked out about the whole Y2K mess because then news spewed lies at us about what would come of us....
Oh and here is yet another shocker..
The Washington Post
D.C. officials said yesterday that the Bush administration is refusing to reimburse the District for most of the costs associated with next week's inauguration, breaking with precedent and forcing the city to divert $11.9 million from homeland security projects.
Federal officials have told the District that it should cover the expenses by using some of the $240 million in federal homeland security grants it has received in the past three years -- money awarded to the city because it is among the places at highest risk of a terrorist attack.
..... "We want to make this the best possible event, but not at the expense of D.C. taxpayers and other homeland security priorities," said Gregory M. McCarthy, the mayor's deputy chief of staff. "This is the first time there hasn't been a direct appropriation for the inauguration."
Well, trust me, no one is handing my hubby that kind of money to influence what pictures he takes! LOL!
If he was taking pictures of Bush they would be.
Well, he did take pictures of the vice-president and he didn't get any extra money! LOL!
I really agree with you completely, Bobbie. Why should my tax money go to media members who are paid to force feed me a political agenda?
No I don't like this.... Paying the media. Please don't they have any sense.
Different if it was a advertisement. Like a bribe here....
Actually they did studies that say in poor communities where there is missing fathers, if the man and woman get married and stay married they have a better life for their kids. Like a safety net for their kids.
Would you allow marriage advertising in this case? (Saves you money in food stamps and wic)
It's one thing, Feona, for a government agency to purchase advertising which is identified as government advertising. It is entirely something else for a columnist to write as if the thoughts s/he was expressing were his/her own, not rising from payments from a government agency. And, if a non-profit organization has an agenda and raises funds to promote that agenda, that is one thing, but if most of that organization's support comes from a government agency and the organization's sole role is to promote a particular government policy, that is another.
The issue here is not the government promoting a particular agenda, but a government agency promoting its agenda covertly by having a columnist pretend it was his own ideas that were being expressed.
I believe in the music industry they used to call it payola when a disk jockey would play songs and give the impression the songs were being played because they were popular, rather than because the disk jockey was being paid to promote the record.
And, as I understand what I have been reading about this, it was illegal for the government agency to do this - to pay a columnist to covertly promote the agency's agenda. Even if one approves of the message, that a government agency broke the law is disturbing.
In 2001, 32.9 million Men, Women and Children were considered poor. Which is 13 to 15% of the US population. Of all poor people over the age of 18 years old 60% are women. Of all poor families 51% were headed by a single woman. You are considered poor by Government standards if you make less than $18,500 for a family of four. The rich only number about 20% of the population but they own 80% of all the wealth. Families of four that do not make over the $18,500 are considered working poor. They work but can't make enough to rise above the poverty (poor pay) level and can barely meet their needs. They came up with $18,500 by taking an average yearly food budget and times it by three. (in other words all we need to do is be able to eat) That all said, The reason why the Bush administration is pushing the pro Marriage agenda is because of those statistics. They think (THINK) that if the man is in the home he is responsible for supporting his child and the welfare system wouldn't be supporting all those children with single mothers.
Bad marriages do not make for Happy health children. They make for emotionally and mentally disturbed adults. So marrying for the sake of a child is only doing harm...
Women on welfare can stay on welfare until their children are 18 years of age. Families (mother and father in the home) are limited to two year stretches with a five year life maximum... Women can get financial aid to raise their child from welfare. The only way a family (mother father in the home) gets financial aid is if their is an illness that will be covered eventually by a disability insurance of some type or if you suffer a lay off or something of that nature. IT is a safety net but can't be taken advantage of like the Aid to children funds (nonsupport from one or other of the parents who doesn't reside in the home). That is the fund that you hear all the comments about women having babies out of wedlock to get more money, etc.
After that all I am is saying is that the Bush Administration has an agenda. And unfortunately that agenda is to sway the views of the masses to see their twisted view of the facts. Pointing their fingers at society for the ills they themselves created...
And Ginny is 100% right it is against the law and it carries a hefty fine and prison time if you are found guilty. BUT they will have to figure out who exactly gave the orders to do it... HMMM, Do you think they will ever find out?? HA!!! And I find this more than disturbing, HOW MANY other lies are being fed to us like we are baby birds daily?????? Every time we turn around we are finding out yet another thing done for and/or done by that man is a lie............
Well said Bobbie.
|
Members
