Overt Propaganda - which newspaper do you read?

This was originally a post on based on the WaPo account of the GAO report on the Bush Administration buying news and covering it up. [Out of laziness, or not wanting to throw away work, that comment is below.] Then, the Dodger saw the contrasting headline in the NYT print addition.

The Dodger leaves media criticism to other blogs. But this is just too much. The WaPo makes a split decision out of an event the NYT says is a slam dunk.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The arrogance of the Administration was dramatic in propagandizing its agenda. There are three things wrong with the Education Department's scam. One is
outsourcing the work which should be done by the agencies themselves in
explaining policies. Two is the agencies promoting the policies rather than
explaining the policies. Third is rewarding the conservative media lickspittles
with sweetheart deals.

BrooklynDodger would have to concede that contracting with someone to
write a speech for an agency official is different from contracting to give the
speech. Nevertheless, conflicts should be disclosed by all journalists,
including the speaking fees for government and trade associations.

[PS: why is it “speak” and
“speech” rather than “speek” and “speech?”]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01educ.html

Buying of News by Bush's Aides Is Ruled Illegal

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: October 1, 2005

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.



GAO Issues Mixed Ruling on Payments to Columnists
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff WriterSaturday, October 1, 2005; Page A10
The Government Accountability Office said yesterday that federal payments to commentator Armstrong Williams to promote President Bush's education law were illegal but that a contract with syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher for work on the administration's marriage initiative was not.
The columnists and the Cabinet departments that hired them came under intense criticism earlier this year after disclosures that Williams was paid by the Education Department to promote the No Child Left Behind Act and that Gallagher was paid by the Department of Health and Human Services to work on Bush's marriage initiative. Williams received $186,000 and Gallagher got $21,500, the GAO said. Critics said the administration was pushing its agenda under the guise of independent commentary.
The GAO said the Education Department violated a ban on covert propaganda in 2003 by hiring Williams to endorse the education law in his newspaper columns and in television appearances, and by failing to require him to disclose the arrangement to his audiences.