Questions of Integrity

Is there something fundamentally wrong with a Presidential administration paying for positive news coverage with taxpayers’ money? I think the answer is pretty clear, but maybe that is just because I am a liberal and the Presidential administration in question is the Bush administration.

The Bush administration had struggled to really get their platform across to black voters and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy was a potential problem for them. I understand the desire to show voters why your plan is better than the opposition, but what boils down to actual media propaganda is From the USA Today, the Bush administration paid Armstrong Williams, a strong black pundit, $240,000 “to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts.” He was also required to interview Education Secretary, Rod Paige, for TV and radio spots. In addition, he persuaded other black media members, including Steve Harvey, to promote the NCLB and, in Harvey’s case, have Paige on his show. Twice.

Boring Education Secretary jokes aside, I am struggling very hard to find where this is okay. First, it is obviously some of the worst propaganda possible. When you consider the fact that government is basically paying for its own news coverage - that is grounds to really question the integrity of the administration. Last year, they used tax payer’s money to make reports that looked like actual news reports in which their Medicare prescription drug reform was made to look like a great thing. The General Accountability Office referred to that incident as illegal use of taxpayer’s dollars. Now, this event, which also includes similar TV spots the GAO was against, and I am curious how anyone can defend this administration.

Armstrong Williams said that while he could see how some would call this unethical, he really felt like the NCLB was the right program for the country. Well, fine. Several conservative pundits believe that. But most aren’t prostituting themselves out to the government for money. At least, that is the hope. Again, how can this administration be defended?

But people will because it’s their guy. Instead of coming down on him, the comments will be, “Well, this Democrat did this.” And in the end, Bush has a very real chance to escape without as much as a hit in the favorability by most conservatives.

To his credit, Williams now says that he would not have done this again and criticism is “legitimate.”

This truly is a bad precedent. Imagine if Bill Clinton HAD done this. Pick a liberal commentator…say, Keith Olbermann…and had Clinton paid him a quarter of a million dollars to make Clinton’s controversial agenda on health care seem like the greatest thing. Maybe even make fake TV news ads where it’s not clear that it is fake TV news. With taxpayer money, no less. He would have been crucified. Wait, what’s worse than that because he was already crucified during his term?

It worries me. Greatly, even. Last year, the Medicare TV ads were almost swept under the rug and did not make it as a big news story. Now, this. Two propaganda-laced events like those do more than just call into question the integrity of the whole administration. It makes you wonder how deep this is. Optimistically, you hope these are isolated incidents because Bush _has_ been in office for four years now. If there are more problems like this out there…well, this could lead to some extreme times for Bush. Not that he will be impeached, but his approval rating has dropped to 49%. Not only would that fall, but it would be hard to see the Bush agenda passing easily, even WITH a Republican dominated Congress because Bush would be viewed as a sinking ship and Congressmen and women are also looking at re-election. Getting dragged down with Bush would not be the best of ideas.

But maybe this news story won’t stay in the circulation for long either. After all, the liberal media just isn’t much for what could be even illegal acts done by a Republican President.