Govt Subsidized Journalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

publius

Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2003
Messages
1,489
Location
Punta Gorda, FL
Writer Backing Bush Plan Had Gotten Federal Contract

By Howard Kurtz
Wednesday, January 26, 2005

In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.

"The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children."

But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. Her work under the contract, which ran from January through October 2002, included drafting a magazine article for the HHS official overseeing the initiative, writing brochures for the program and conducting a briefing for department officials.

"Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.

Later in the day, Gallagher filed a column in which she said that "I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers."

In the interview, Gallagher said her situation was "not really anything near" the recent controversy involving conservative commentator Armstrong Williams. Earlier this month Williams apologized for not disclosing a $241,000 contract with the Education Department, awarded through the Ketchum public relations firm, to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind law through advertising on his cable TV and syndicated radio shows and other efforts.

Gallagher received an additional $20,000 from the Bush administration in 2002 and 2003 for writing a report, titled "Can Government Strengthen Marriage?", for a private organization called the National Fatherhood Initiative. That report, published last year, was funded by a Justice Department grant, said NFI spokesman Vincent DiCaro. Gallagher said she was "aware vaguely" that her work was federally funded.

In columns, television appearances and interviews with such newspapers as The Washington Post, Gallagher last year defended Bush's proposal for a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage.

Wade Horn, HHS assistant secretary for children and families, said his division hired Gallagher as "a well-known national expert," along with other specialists in the field, to help devise the president's healthy marriage initiative. "It's not unusual in the federal government to do that," he said.

The essay Gallagher drafted appeared under Horn's byline -- with the headline "Closing the Marriage Gap" -- and ran in Crisis magazine, which promotes humanism rooted in Catholic Church teachings. Horn said most of the brochures written by Gallagher -- such as "The Top Ten Reasons Marriage Matters" -- were not used as the program evolved.

"I don't see any comparison between what has been alleged with Armstrong Williams and what we did with Maggie Gallagher," said Horn, who founded the National Fatherhood Initiative before entering government. "We didn't pay her to write columns. We didn't pay her to promote the president's healthy marriage initiative at all. What we wanted to do was use her expertise." The Education Department is now investigating the Williams contract.

The author of three books on marriage, Gallagher is president of the Washington-based Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a frequent television guest and has written on the subject for such publications as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Weekly Standard.

While she was being paid by HHS in 2002, Gallagher in her syndicated column dismissed the arguments against "President Bush's modest marriage initiative" as "nonsense," writing: "Bush plans to use a tiny fraction of surplus welfare dollars to fund marriage education services for at-risk couples."

In a column later that year that appeared in the Myrtle Beach (S.C.) Sun News, Gallagher said Bush's welfare-revision bill would, among other things, encourage "stable marriages," and that it was a "scandal" for Democrats to reject the president's plan and fail to offer an alternative.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: "We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio."

Tribune Media Services dropped Williams's column after his administration contract was disclosed. Universal Press Syndicate, which distributes Gallagher's column, plans no such action.

"We did not know about the contract," spokeswoman Kathie Kerr said. "We would have probably liked to have known." But, Kerr said, "this is what we hired Maggie to write about. It probably wouldn't have changed our mind to distribute it."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.†Thomas Jefferson
------------------
"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others." --William Allen White
------------------
"When government throws cash on a fire, it tends to flare up rather than smother the flames." --me
 
"I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it.

Yeah, I'm always forgetting those jobs that paid $21K+ myself, too. I'll bet she didn't forget to pay taxes on it.
 
The government has been subsidizing "journalism" for years.

They're known as PBS and NPR

:banghead:
 
The goverment is now having Individual administrations

Pushing there proposals. Social Security, is educating people about the "crisis"
and pushing the positive effects of private accounts

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

Look for yourself.
 
Yes, I'm aware that they are doing that over at the Socialist Security Administration.

Remembering the days when only wild-eyed libertarians dared utter the phrase privatize social security, it is nice to see the agency itself promoting the concept. It's nice right up until I remember that their boss will not be George W Bush forever. The next administration could order them to educate the public about the dangerous fluctuations (or whatever) of private accounts, and the relative safety and security of a government guarantee.

Their job is to administer the stupid program. Advocating policy changes affecting the program is NOT their job. That should be paid for by campaign funds, not taxpayer funds.

Thomas Paine:
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
 
Hold on. WHy privatise Social Security? If it is such a great idea, why not just invest SS funds in the stock market?

The baby boomers are getting older. There stock holdings (mutual funds) are going to get liquidated. What will that do to the stock market? Privatisation is another Big Business hand out. Its another way to keep the stock market Lucrative. Im waiting for Rice to make a statement like. "If we dont act now, the smoking gun will be a social security mushroom cloud"
SS reform has always been a 3rd rail of politics. Combine this issue with his other big business giveaway of cheap imported labor, and you will see the republicans become quickly irrelavant in future elections
 
We don't allow the SS Trust Fund to invest in the stock market for two reasons:

One, the government would prefer to just lend the money to themselves and spend it, piling the debt onto the unborn rather than investing in something which will actually generate returns.

Two, if the government is allowed into the market, it will immediately be the biggest single player. Companies which are politically correct will get investment funds. Companies which are less politically safe, but which may be more sensible investments, will not. We saw in the former Soviet Union what happens when politicians determine which businesses will get funded.
 
Personally, I'm getting ready for the crazy cash grab. My bet is that people with little or no knowledge will dump their newfound 'investing money' into blue chips, driving the price up quickly. They will have no concept of even P/E ratios, and will not see it coming when the profit-taking hits.

Likewise, they could go to a broker for advice! Lol a broker who suddenly has more clients than he knew existed. What do you think he's going to advise? He's going to give some advice, and also tell them to buy the stock that his buddy happens to want to sell.

So many nightmare possibilities, it's a horrible thing to do to so many people, but privitization will happen. They're dropping cute fluffy bunnies into a pirahna tank, you better decide quickly which you want to be.

The worst thing about that SSA site is the way it misleads. INVESTING IN A STOCK MARKET IS GAMBLING. IT IS GAMBLING. IT IS NOT SAFE, IT IS GAMBLING! You have to manage your funds as a gambler! If oner person makes money some-one else has to lose it!

Lol, 300 millions suckers won't even see it coming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top