Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The GAO gets it; why can't George

The GAO gets it; why can't George
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2005, 10:39 PM
 
This was discussed here a while back, and there were those who defended the administration. There is no defense!

Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal

By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.

The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.

Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."

The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds."

The report also sharply criticized the Education Department for telling Ketchum Inc., a public relations company, to pay Mr. Williams for newspaper columns and television appearances praising Mr. Bush's education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.

When that arrangement became public, it set off widespread criticism. At a news conference in January, Mr. Bush said: "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."

But the Education Department has since defended its payments to Mr. Williams, saying his commentaries were "no more than the legitimate dissemination of information to the public."

The G.A.O. said the Education Department had no money or authority to "procure favorable commentary in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition" in federal law.

The ruling comes with no penalty, but under federal law the department is supposed to report the violations to the White House and Congress.

In the course of its work, the accountability office discovered a previously undisclosed instance in which the Education Department had commissioned a newspaper article. The article, on the "declining science literacy of students," was distributed by the North American Precis Syndicate and appeared in numerous small newspapers around the country. Readers were not informed of the government's role in the writing of the article, which praised the department's role in promoting science education.

The auditors denounced a prepackaged television story disseminated by the Education Department. The segment, a "video news release" narrated by a woman named Karen Ryan, said that President Bush's program for providing remedial instruction and tutoring to children "gets an A-plus."

Ms. Ryan also narrated two videos praising the new Medicare drug benefit last year. In those segments, as in the education video, the narrator ended by saying, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

The television news segments on education and on Medicare did not state that they had been prepared and distributed by the government. The G.A.O. did not say how many stations carried the reports.

The public relations efforts came to light weeks before Margaret Spellings became education secretary in January. Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman for the secretary, said on Friday that Ms. Spellings regarded the efforts as "stupid, wrong and ill-advised." She said Ms. Spellings had taken steps "to ensure these types of missteps don't happen again."

The investigation by the accountability office was requested by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats. Mr. Lautenberg expressed concern about a section of the report in which investigators said they could not find records to confirm that Mr. Williams had performed all the activities for which he billed the government.

The Education Department said it had paid Ketchum $186,000 for services performed by Mr. Williams's company. But it could not provide transcripts of speeches, articles or records of other services invoiced by Mr. Williams, the report said.

In March, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said that federal agencies did not have to acknowledge their role in producing television news segments if they were factual. The inspector general of the Education Department recently reiterated that position.

But the accountability office said on Friday: "The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual. The essential fact of attribution is missing."

The office said Mr. Williams's work for the government resulted from a written proposal that he submitted to the Education Department in March 2003. The department directed Ketchum to use Mr. Williams as a regular commentator on Mr. Bush's education policies. Ketchum had a federal contract to help publicize those policies, signed by Mr. Bush in 2002.

The Education Department flouted the law by telling Ketchum to use Mr. Williams to "convey a message to the public on behalf of the government, without disclosing to the public that the messengers were acting on the government's behalf and in return for the payment of public funds," the G.A.O. said.

The Education Department spent $38,421 for production and distribution of the video news release and $96,850 for the evaluation of newspaper articles and radio and television programs. Ketchum assigned a score to each article, indicating how often and favorably it mentioned features of the new education law.

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money may be used to produce or distribute a news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 01:04 AM
 
I was always for full disclosure in the pieces. I don't have a problem with the government promoting newly passed laws, or communicating with the public in general, via media buys. But a "paid for by the Department of..." should have been utilized. And that should be the general conclusion of this report. See, the GAO isn't in the prosecutorial or law-enforcement business, and the Justice Dept. has already ruled on this issue. So for this article's contention that the GAO can issue any rulings or judgements of anything as being illegal is completely fraudulent.

It's interesting that while the more appropriately titled and widespread AP article "GAO: Education Department broke rules" is all over the place, you chose to post the Bush-hating Robert Pear's Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal. Nice touch.

Regardless, we now see the liberal gameplan in full force. Market to the public via the left's preferred vehicle, the mainstream media, that Republicans are corrupt and racist. And as always, it enables the Democrats to continue withoug doing any semblance of productive service.

THe Dem's game is all going to crumble. There's not a doubt in my mind.
(Last edited by spacefreak; Oct 1, 2005 at 01:29 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 10:47 AM
 
Nice spin on the basic facts.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 11:06 AM
 
The original thread that discussed this had a link to the Clinton Admin doing about the same thing, so where were the GAO back then?? Naaa, doesn't sound political at all.......
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 11:20 AM
 
I don't recall that, but if that was the case, then it should have been dealt with at that time as well.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 11:39 AM
 
Why not deal with it now?

Both instances were in the past. And all the folks are still alive.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 11:42 AM
 
I looked at the original thread. I don't see anything new here. It was the GAO (an unelected body that reports to Congress) who criticized the use of Video News Releases several months ago, and this just says that they haven't changed their mind. I'll make the assumption here that the Executive Branch hasn't changed its mind either.

Neither side can actually rule definitively on the matter because all that is at issue here is the interpretation of a statute that could go this way, could go that. The GAO is not a law enforcement body, it's an office that reports to Congress on the use of funds. The only body that can weigh in definitively would be Congress itself. That is, the elected representatives, not the lawyers who work for them. If Congress decides that there has been a misuse of the funds that it appropriates, Congress can cut the budget. But if they don't choose to do so, the opinion of the GAO is irrelevant. Of course, Congress means Congress as a whole. It doesn't just mean Ted Kennedy.

Besides which, in the original thread I argued two things. First, I don't see any of the uses of funds that have been reported are particularly threatening. That's not so much defending the Bush Administration as saying that I don't share the outrage given the kinds of things this money has been used for. OK, paying Armstrong Williams was dumb, but do I really care if the education department promoted Head Start? No, not really. Second, I argued the whole matter is moot if only journalists weren't so lazy and would indicate when they choose to cop out and use a press release as the basis (often the entirety) of their story. For journalists to be whining about a practice which they themselves encourage and benefit from strikes me as hypocritical. But then again, we are talking about the New York Times.

But anyway, there is nothing new here. The New York Times is just rehashing old news. Maybe it was a slow day and they got a press release and decided to run with it. It appears from this link that it's not journalists who have been digging into this. Rather, it is People for the American Way.

The video and reporter rankings came to light through a Freedom of Information Act request by People for the American Way, a liberal group that contended the department was using tax dollars to promote a political agenda.
What's the betting they sent out a press release to the Times?
(Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Oct 1, 2005 at 11:55 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey
But anyway, there is nothing new here. The New York Times is just rehashing old news. Maybe it was a slow day and they got a press release and decided to run with it. It appears from this link that it's not journalists who have been digging into this. Rather, it is People for the American Way.



What's the betting they sent out a press release to the Times?
The GAO released a new statement on this on Friday - that's what the Times was reporting about, not a new press release from PFAW. And it was obviously Congress that asked for these GAO opinions. Here's the GAO statement, but I think that's just the cover pages. [edit] Oh, here they are: on the Department of Education propaganda activities, and on HHS, where they actually found they didn't violate the law.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 02:37 PM
 
So Kennedy and Lautenberg provide Ketchum with a list of "negative" things to look for in these promotional spots.... I'm sure all govenrment communications regarding new laws and programs contain such partisan passages, like:

· NCLB is not sufficiently funded;

· NCLB law is too vague and confusing and too difficult for states to implement;

· Federal testing requirements contradict existing state requirements; states will have to spend a lot to develop new tests;

· There are wide discrepancies between state criteria for evaluating under performing schools;

· Teacher training programs do not have enough money to train teachers to meet new requirements;

· Better schools will become too crowded/burdened as the school transfer option progresses;

· In some districts, there are no better schools to which students may transfer, or the better schools are already crowded;

· Spending money on transporting students to better schools means taking money away from schools; parents have to spend extra time/money for transportation;

· States do not have enough flexibility; federal government/Bush administration is interfering;

· Increased testing is not a substitute for education reform; “teaching to the test”;

· The new law may cause a teacher shortage, as qualification requirements are too rigid; teachers are set up to fail; and

· States are lowering their standards to avoid negative labels/unfairly stigmatizing schools.
If only the Education Department's communications contained the liberal talking points, the material would have been OK. The more this report is dissected, the more a joke it becomes.

Perhaps Social Security materials should include things like "Social Security will be completely bankrupt in 35 years", "Drastic cuts in your benefits will soon take place", etc.

Or maybe unemployment benefits pamphlets should begin with "Get off your ass and get a friggin job".
(Last edited by spacefreak; Oct 1, 2005 at 02:44 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
The GAO released a new statement on this on Friday - that's what the Times was reporting about, not a new press release from PFAW. And it was obviously Congress that asked for these GAO opinions. Here's the GAO statement, but I think that's just the cover pages. [edit] Oh, here they are: on the Department of Education propaganda activities, and on HHS, where they actually found they didn't violate the law.
OK. Its interesting that the New York Times article didn't manage to convey the information contained in those summaries. I.e. that GAO agreed that the law wasn't in fact broken in at least one of the cases. (Or to be more precise, that GAO says the funds weren't spent incorrectly, since we aren't talking about a criminal law here).

We also have the same basic issue that GAO is not the authoritative or neutral adjudicator that it is being made out to be. Their lawyers are simply civil servants who answer to Congress. The executive branch has its own lawyers. The office of legal counsel and GAO's lawyers disagree in their interpretations of the law. GAO is no more the authoritative decisionmaker on this than the executive branch.

However, it appears that the law has subsequently been changed (assuming GAO's letter is accurate). If so, that could change things in a forward-looking sense, at least in this appropriations cycle. But it doesn't change the legal analysis looking backwards, which GAO concedes in its letters.

Oh, and by the way, to be exact, it wasn't Congress who asked for their report. Rather it was two individual Democratic senators -- Kennedy and Lautenberg. They don't speak for all of Congress, but they do usually speak for People for the American Way.

The bottom line I think you will agree that the measured tone of the GAO letters, one of which in any case agreed with the administration, does not justify the New York Times' hysterical headline. "Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal." That's just bad journalism.
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2011 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.7 © 2000-2011, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2