If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Kos I Care)   News commentator paid $240,000 by Bush Administration to support and defend No Child Left Behind   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 1239
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

29414 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jan 2005 at 11:11 AM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1239 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-01-07 09:23:19 AM
As someone on that site said, this is peobably what Moyers had in mind when he said these words:

"The biggest story of our time is how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee ... and a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line," Moyers declared. "Therefore," he added, "we don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people."
 
2005-01-07 09:23:31 AM
Bush SUCKS.
 
2005-01-07 09:25:05 AM
Let me rephrase and correct that...As someone on DailyKos.com said, this is probably....
 
2005-01-07 09:28:15 AM
Ketchum referred questions to the Education Department, whose spokesman, John Gibbons, said the contract followed standard government procedures. He said there are no plans to continue with "similar outreach."


Hahahahaha....breathe....haha..heh...sniff, sniff....bawwwwwwlllll!
 
2005-01-07 09:34:41 AM
I am sure newmoonpuppyhead and n_carrvoigt will be soundly rebutted by conservative TF frequenters who will soon rush into this thread and provide reasonable and rational justifications for paying a pundit taxpayer dollars to support an Administration position. I am sure you two will soon roundly be squelched by the impeccable explanation for how such government spending is perfectly acceptable.

(Loooooong pause)

Wait for it.

(Pause)

No, those are crickets chirping. But soon, they will come.

(Pause)

Any minute now....
 
2005-01-07 09:35:29 AM
... paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same....

Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in."


For $240,000, I'd believe in it too.

/What an asshole
 
2005-01-07 09:36:50 AM
*waiting beside Lars*
 
2005-01-07 09:37:37 AM
are they seriously just running out of evil things to do? now they're just going balls out to see if anyone will notice.
 
2005-01-07 09:39:33 AM
Although this is illegal, quite frightening, and verified fact, I doubt you'll see the mainstream news media reporting the story with any fervor. They usually reserve that for more important things, like the Scott Peterson trial. Oh, and it would be in violation of their contracts with the Bush administration.

/How many Deep Throats do we need?
 
2005-01-07 09:40:07 AM
This story is gross.
 
2005-01-07 09:40:29 AM
As a taxpayer, I am outraged. I've never heard of this guy. What a waste of money.

Admittedly, I don't pay to much attention to pundits.
 
2005-01-07 09:41:53 AM
You forgot to mention that Moyers has been on the government payroll for how many years NMPH...

Or is it just the opposing side that should get paid by the government?
 
2005-01-07 09:42:18 AM
Oh, and Lars, they just think they're conservative. If they actually looked it up in the dictionary they'd find out that the positions they're supporting are traditional liberal views. They just defend Bush because they can't admit they were so very wrong.
 
2005-01-07 09:42:28 AM
the bush mass will spin this story into whatever strikes their fancy. they are in complete denial, and so far from reality, they might as well be in a parallel universe. meanwhile, the neocons laugh all the way to the bank. they didnt fool me though, those filthy bastards.
 
2005-01-07 09:43:50 AM
LarsThorwald:

I am sure Dancin_In_Anson will be soundly rebutted by liberal TF frequenters who will soon rush into this thread and provide reasonable and rational justifications for paying a pundit taxpayer dollars to support Administration opposition.


See the Bill Moyers quote.
 
2005-01-07 09:43:52 AM
if it's taxpayer money, nope, i wouldn't defend it. have the bush campaign pay it back to the treasury
 
2005-01-07 09:44:21 AM
I wonder what the Hannity/O'Reilly/Coulter/Malkin payroll looks like?
 
2005-01-07 09:46:53 AM
I'm standing with Lars, waiting to see someone turn this into Clinton's fault.
 
2005-01-07 09:48:12 AM
It was actually a million dollar deal.

And hooray for this getting greenlit!
 
2005-01-07 09:48:33 AM
DIA: When you attribute a quote to someone, don't completely rewrite it.
 
2005-01-07 09:50:48 AM
And hooray for this getting greenlit!

Good heavens, why? It might have been a decent thread. Now it's just headed for Uday's industrial shredder.
 
2005-01-07 09:50:58 AM
To make a point...care to rebut it or just rag on me for how I did it?
 
2005-01-07 09:53:17 AM
Dancin_In_Anson:

Gauntlet's thrown.

Ignoring for a moment that your Moyers statement is a diversion, and not an explanation, I want you to prove it.

Other than when, back in the 1960s when he was an aide to President Johnson (and not a commentator or journalist) or as a commentator on PBS, you show me where Moyers has been paid government funds while acting as a commentator.

Show me, big boy.
 
2005-01-07 09:53:42 AM
I am curious....Is this the first time that Taxpayer money has been used to promote an Administration agenda?
 
2005-01-07 09:53:47 AM
again, i'm not defending it, but i hope our vigiliant protectors of taxpayer funds on the left will next take a look at the hugh amounts of taxpayer money used by Congress for electioneering in the guise of newsletters and other constitutent outreach efforts.
 
2005-01-07 09:55:08 AM
The contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

If that's the case, what about adds for government subsidized home buying programs through HUD and FHA? Weren't those being run a few years back, and maybe even still being run?
 
2005-01-07 09:55:28 AM
You just proved it for yourself:

LarsThorwald:

as a commentator on PBS, you show me where Moyers has been paid government funds

How long did he work for PBS? How much was he paid over that period of time? Where did that money come from?
 
2005-01-07 09:55:51 AM
You go to flame wars with the straw herrings you have, not the straw herrings you might want or wish to have.
 
2005-01-07 09:57:19 AM
DIA: Moyers is paid quite indirectly via PBS. This was a back room deal to a single, specific commentator to push a single, specific controversial agenda item. Ergo, direct. They hardly compare.

Oh, and to directly attribute a quote to Lars and completely rewrite it is more than bad form, it's just wrong. Had you prefaced the post with a brief, perhaps pithy sentence denoting that you were intentionally misrepresenting Lars's statement, it would have been fine.
 
2005-01-07 09:58:48 AM
John Paul Jones, I cant speak for the rest but I can tell you that Coulter doesnt get paid by them. she gets her money directly from Satan himself, who pays it via some sort of infernal Western Union-type thing.
 
2005-01-07 09:59:32 AM
the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.


He may have given $240,000 of your money to a rich person that didn't need it, but Bush personally gave $10,000 to millions of tsunami survivors, so the bad is balanced out by the good in the end.

/sarcasm times 10,000
 
2005-01-07 10:00:10 AM
Frankly, it doesn't matter who gets the money. Paying a journalist to support an administrations position is basically propaganda, and totally unethical.

At least in Canada the CBC isn't paid by a government... oh wait.

Never mind

*shuffles feet and goes back to lurking*
 
2005-01-07 10:00:21 AM
I think we oughta put some of these people on a boat... send 'em up to Bear Mountain for a picnic.
 
2005-01-07 10:02:19 AM
DIA

Moyer isn't paid money in order to support one position or another. He's paid to do his freaking job. If you can't tell the difference between a paycheck and a bribe, it's time to thumb through the dictionary to "Ethics" again, and then hit yourself in the nards with it.
 
2005-01-07 10:02:31 AM
SherKhan:

You go to flame wars with the straw herrings you have, not the straw herrings you might want or wish to have.

L. O. L.
 
2005-01-07 10:02:59 AM
John Paul Jones:

Moyers is paid quite indirectly via PBS

How are you paid indirectly by your employer? Why would you want that? To hide the fact that you are getting paid by the same government that you are railing against?

Ok....

And watch. I will get a bazillion "red staw herring men" but no one that will say that the goverment paying someone who is 100% opposed to the Administration is as bad as the government paying someone who "believes in the program"...
 
2005-01-07 10:03:56 AM
Obdicut:

Moyer isn't paid money in order to support one position or another.

But that is in fact what he did. Whas that his job?
 
2005-01-07 10:04:22 AM
2005-01-07 10:00:10 AM OlafTheBent

Frankly, it doesn't matter who gets the money. Paying a journalist to support an administrations position is basically propaganda, and totally unethical.


Which is very different than what D_I_A is insinuating; that PBS receives 30% of it's funding from the taxpayers. However, since republicans, in 2002, voted to support this funding, I'm not sure what he is trying to make out of his stance.
 
2005-01-07 10:09:53 AM
Though I am kinda peeved that taxpayer's money is used to support bastions of the left, like Sesame Street and the Red Green Show.
 
2005-01-07 10:12:09 AM
DIA:

Caught, you, Texas boy, in the very trap I set up for you.

You're wrong in assuming (and you know what happens when you assume) that PBS receives taxpayer dollars. It does not. I set up that little ploy knowing that what you meant was Moyers' work for PBS, and hoping you would confirm it and then box yourself into a no-win situation. Whih you did.

If you did your homework--which you obviously didn't--you would know that PBS does not receive any federal or state taxpayer money. PBS receives no federal or state funding but must solicit funding from the public. The two main sources are: (1) Subscriptions - annual contributions from listeners, (2) Sponsorship - paid announcements which describe a sponsors business activities.

You are confusing PBS with something else, cowboy.

Moreover, your Moyers statement doesn't answer the question whether what the administration did was wrong, or whether this is a justifiable use of taxpayer money. It's a logical fallacy, a debate trick used to divert attention from the question at hand by raising another. It's a tactic that should end with the 10th grade election for class council.

I suggest that if the show were on the other foot and the White House was in the D column, and it was discovered that the administration was paying Al Franken to tout a Universal Health Care bill, you and your friends on the right would be apoplectic and scarlet with righteous rage.

And I don't think anyone doubts that would be the case.

Sh*t, man, even albo was consistent enough to man up and say this is horsesh*t use of taxpayer money. The fact that you can't, when all fall long you derided Kerry and his ilk for spending or intending to spend taxpayer monies wrongly or spendthriftly, shows you place more value on loyalty to party or this President than on what's right.

You honestly think this is justifiable? If so, then tell me how. If not, then you should be hooting and hollering about it.

If you do neither, than you have no credibility.


4. Final
 
2005-01-07 10:13:06 AM
Dancin In Anson

Yes, that was his job. Christ, you're being obtuse.

If the mayor gives a cop $200,000 to spend all of his time policing the Irish section and stay the hell out of the Italian one, that's unethical. This is an analagous situation. It doesn't matter that policing is the cops job, it doesn't matter that the mayor is the government, it matters that funds were given for a clearly unethical purpose in a clearly unethical manner.

Did congress vote on giving this guy the money? Did congress vote on giving PBS money? Have you lost all sense of rationality and shame?
 
2005-01-07 10:13:43 AM
and carefull of your red strawmen. conservatives are not necessarily supporting this. from NRO's the corner:

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS: CLARIFICATION [Jonah Goldberg]
Sorry if I seemed to be critcizing only Williams. I think it was stupid and unacceptable for the Administration to give him the money. If the Clinton Administration had been paying off liberal pundits to promote his policies we would have gone batty, and rightly so. A better explanation is required. The whole thing seems gross to me.
Posted at 10:08 AM
 
2005-01-07 10:14:06 AM
astudill:

Which is very different than what D_I_A is insinuating; that PBS receives 30% of it's funding from the taxpayers. However, since republicans, in 2002, voted to support this funding, I'm not sure what he is trying to make out of his stance.


Let's just take a quote form the story itself:

" The contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda.""

And to repeat you:

PBS receives 30% of it's funding from the taxpayers

And to repeat Moyers:

Im going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee. We have an ideological press thats interested in the election of Republicans, and a mainstream press thats interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we dont have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American people.


propaganda (n) Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause

Moyers quote fits that definition and regardless of how much as a %, he is still being paid by a government run operation...And "Congress has prohibited propaganda".
 
2005-01-07 10:14:23 AM
DIA:

Caught, you, Texas boy, in the very trap I set up for you.

You're wrong in assuming (and you know what happens when you assume) that PBS receives taxpayer dollars. It does not. I set up that little ploy knowing that what you meant was Moyers' work for PBS, and hoping you would confirm it and then box yourself into a no-win situation. Which you did.

If you did your homework--which you obviously didn't--you would know that PBS does not receive any federal or state taxpayer money. PBS receives no federal or state funding but must solicit funding from the public. The two main sources are: (1) Subscriptions - annual contributions from listeners, (2) Sponsorship - paid announcements which describe a sponsors business activities.

You are confusing PBS with something else, cowboy.

Moreover, your Moyers statement doesn't answer the question whether what the administration did was wrong, or whether this is a justifiable use of taxpayer money. It's a logical fallacy, a debate trick used to divert attention from the question at hand by raising another. It's a tactic that should end with the 10th grade election for class council.

I suggest that if the show were on the other foot and the White House was in the D column, and it was discovered that the administration was paying Al Franken to tout a Universal Health Care bill, you and your friends on the right would be apoplectic and scarlet with righteous rage.

And I don't think anyone doubts that would be the case.

Sh*t, man, even albo was consistent enough to man up and say this is horsesh*t use of taxpayer money. The fact that you can't, when all fall long you derided Kerry and his ilk for spending or intending to spend taxpayer monies wrongly or spendthriftly, shows you place more value on loyalty to party or this President than on what's right.

You honestly think this is justifiable? If so, then tell me how. If not, then you should be hooting and hollering about it.

If you do neither, than you have no credibility.
 
2005-01-07 10:15:57 AM
Lars, it's even more convincing when you say it all twice!
 
2005-01-07 10:18:04 AM
astudill, I agree, however, it also supports hockey which is apolitical... except when Grapes opens his mouth.

/Please don't include me in the mob ganging up on D_I_A... he's a lot nicer than you think.
 
2005-01-07 10:18:42 AM
LarsThorwald:

PBS does not receive any federal or state taxpayer money.

astudill:

PBS receives 30% of it's funding from the taxpayers.

Who's right here?


Well let's see.

"The largest source of revenue for U.S. public television stations comes from donations by individual viewers. In addition to these member fees, PBS receives federal government money through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)."


Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS

(got tossed for some reason.
 
2005-01-07 10:19:19 AM
Can't say that I'm surprised. With this administration, nothing shocks me anymore.

I really did pick the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.
 
2005-01-07 10:20:34 AM
How the hell did this argument turn into a Moyers/PBS flamewar? Can we please keep the flamewar focused on the topic at hand?
 
2005-01-07 10:21:36 AM
And for the record...have I stated my thoughts on how I feel about the story at hand? Nope.

Taking my statemnts at face value, do y'all think I stand on Armstrong Williams getting federal money?
 
Displayed 50 of 1239 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report