Need a commentator to pimp your government program?

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » January 7, 2005, 7:40 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... promotelaw

I picked this up at Fark, so I'm sure some of you have already seen it. I find this to be highly unethical. The government should not be paying radio hosts to spread (what basically amounts to) propaganda for them.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » January 8, 2005, 5:06 am

ok, another no-credit asshole exposed, next

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » January 8, 2005, 11:59 am

Sionistic wrote:ok, another no-credit asshole exposed, next

Ya, too bad nobody can get him out of office

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 8, 2005, 3:09 pm

You know, the US government purchases advertising space on radio and TV all the time.

I haven't read the specifics of this case, but non the less suspect it isn't new.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 9, 2005, 1:32 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:You know, the US government purchases advertising space on radio and TV all the time.

I haven't read the specifics of this case, but non the less suspect it isn't new.

FFS Adex, cash for comment != legitimate advertising.

If I pay your priest to say homosexuality is ok, you have no problem there?

People, albeit stupid people, put faith in these commentators in the same way that you might your priest. Paying them to endorse something in this manner is clearly unethical at the very least.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 9, 2005, 1:51 am

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002017.html

Bush May Have Paid Michael Moore to Oppose Him
by Scott Ott

(2005-01-08 ) -- Even as Tribune Media Services announced it had dropped columnist Armstrong Williams after he admitted receiving $241,000 from the Department of Education to promote 'No Child Left Behind', new allegations surfaced today that the Bush administration may have paid Michael Moore to oppose the president's reelection.

Mr. Moore and the White House both deny the charges, but critics point to the "almost scary" relationship between Mr. Bush's electoral success and the vigorous efforts of the Oscar-winning filmmaker to tarnish the president's image.

"The more he attacked Bush, the more Americans loved the president," said an unnamed spokesman for the American Society of Correspondents, Editors and Writers. "You don't have to be Oliver Stone to see the outlines of a conspiracy there. Michael Moore practically handed Bush his second term on a silver platter."

"The outcry from professional journalists over these pay-for-commentary scandals is not surprising," the source added. "They violated the journalistic code of honor. It's appalling to think that these men received compensation for weaving their biases into their work. Meanwhile, thousands of hard-working journalists do the same thing every day at no extra charge."

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 9, 2005, 10:23 pm

Hmm, I read the materials.

Let's say you're a professional golf player. You really love a particular brand of clubs and like to use them. All a sudden the manufacturer offers to pay you money to use the club types that you already like. You were going to use them anyway, now you're getting paid to endorse something you'd be using anyway.

Likewise with this guy and the program he was paid to support, he liked the program before he got the offer to endorse it.

If you look at his politics, such a stance believeable.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 9, 2005, 10:58 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:Hmm, I read the materials.

Let's say you're a professional golf player. You really love a particular brand of clubs and like to use them. All a sudden the manufacturer offers to pay you money to use the club types that you already like. You were going to use them anyway, now you're getting paid to endorse something you'd be using anyway.

Likewise with this guy and the program he was paid to support, he liked the program before he got the offer to endorse it.

If you look at his politics, such a stance believeable.

I agree to an extent, but cash for comment is a very slippery slope when you're talking about Government programs rather than sporting endorsements. IIRC Tiger got bit in the ass when he tried to change clubs to support his endorsement deals too

There's a vast difference too between the credibility people give to an advertisement and apparent editorial comment; even in the golfing analogy people trust the endorsement of a golfer using Brand X clubs than when he comes on television to endorse them in an advertisement. Hell, even the infomercial people try to lend credibility to their craptastic products with "unpaid endorsement" by a string of slackjawed idiots. If he made the clear distinction that he was being paid to advertise a program he already supported, not only is it more honest, but the impact is incredibly different.

Say you have a priest that had a gay son before he was ordained, what if he tends to support gay rights because he chose to be compassionate towards his son rather than disowning him. Cash for comment from the pulpit ok now?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 10, 2005, 12:12 am

Adex, do you seriously believe that your analogy is in any way relevant?

I don't particularly fault Bush or his camp here; politics is politics. I do find what the journalist did to be repugnant and highly unethical.

Do you honestly not see a problem with a journalist surreptitiously accepting money in exchange for providing biased coverage? Even if you don't think he has any obligation to be honest to his audience, I'd still think he has an obligation to perform the work that his employers pay him to perform.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » January 10, 2005, 1:21 am

Brotha wrote:http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002017.html

Bush May Have Paid Michael Moore to Oppose Him
by Scott Ott

(2005-01-08 ) -- Even as Tribune Media Services announced it had dropped columnist Armstrong Williams after he admitted receiving $241,000 from the Department of Education to promote 'No Child Left Behind', new allegations surfaced today that the Bush administration may have paid Michael Moore to oppose the president's reelection.

Mr. Moore and the White House both deny the charges, but critics point to the "almost scary" relationship between Mr. Bush's electoral success and the vigorous efforts of the Oscar-winning filmmaker to tarnish the president's image.

"The more he attacked Bush, the more Americans loved the president," said an unnamed spokesman for the American Society of Correspondents, Editors and Writers. "You don't have to be Oliver Stone to see the outlines of a conspiracy there. Michael Moore practically handed Bush his second term on a silver platter."

"The outcry from professional journalists over these pay-for-commentary scandals is not surprising," the source added. "They violated the journalistic code of honor. It's appalling to think that these men received compensation for weaving their biases into their work. Meanwhile, thousands of hard-working journalists do the same thing every day at no extra charge."

If that was true, F9/11 would have had more propaganda (the entire 1st half of the film was propaganda, but if he really wanted to turn people off he would have taken it further)

I wish Kerry was smart enough to pay Falwell or someone of the sort to make a movie about how kerry had a few black jewish and gay friends and how hes really satan and will make all americans burn in hell by allowing nudity and profanity on the tv