Bush Administration Propoganda ? Brownwood's Talking Heads are silent on this one !

The Conservative Marketing Machine
    By Laurie Spivak
    AlterNet.org

    Tuesday 11 January 2005

Armstrong Williams being paid to promote Bush administration policies in his columns is just one part of the behemoth marketing effort that the right wing has perfected.

    The Armstrong Williams story that surfaced last week is unquestionably a juicy one: the conservative, African-American commentator was paid a sweet $240,000 (in taxpayer dollars), by the Department of Education to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. Ketchum, a public relations firm, served as the intermediary, contracting with Williams to promote the controversial law in op/ed pieces and on his nationally syndicated television show "The Right Side," to urge other black journalists and producers to "periodically address" NCLB, and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for radio and television spots promoting the legislation.

    Does Ketchum PR sound familiar? If it does, it's because these are the good folks who brought America Karen Ryan last year. Remember Karen? "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting." She was the PR hack who posed as a reporter back in early 2004 to tout President Bush's Medicare reform plan in fake news spots paid for by taxpayer dollars. In May, 2004, the nonpartisan General Accounting Office investigated the Medicare spots and determined that they were illegal because they violated a ban on publicly funded "covert propaganda." Lest a little thing like legality stop this administration, Karen Ryan surfaced again in October in her latest fake news story touting another of President Bush's programs just in time for the election - you guessed it - No Child Left Behind.

    In looking at the Williams scandal, there is certainly no shortage of story angles to choose from. There is the classic hypocrisy angle, on full display in one of Williams' articles dated May 24, 2004, with the headline "The Big Education Sell Out" next to a grinning photo of the journalist. In the article, Williams - incidentally, a former aide to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas - criticizes the National Education Association (NEA) for caring more about "massaging the perception" of the public than about kids because of the union's opposition to No Child Left Behind. Classically satirical stuff from a guy who was paid a cool quarter million to massage public perception on the highly contentious NCLB legislation, while his own web site promotes him as both "independent" and "a principled voice for conservatives."

    Of course, pundits and journalists tend to favor the "breach of journalistic ethics" angle. Williams, who regularly appears as a commentator on CNN and CNBC failed to disclose his $240,000 payoff to either news producers or audiences when touting the failing NCLB program as a sign of President Bush's unwavering support of the black community. While a CNN spokesperson said, "we will seriously consider this before booking him again," Tribune Media Services (TMS), the syndication service that distributed Williams columns to newspapers nationwide, went a step further and terminated its contract with Williams last Friday. According to TMS, Williams wrote at least four newspaper columns on NCLB in 2004, but never disclosed that he was on the Department of Education's payroll. How did Williams explain this egregious breach of ethics? "I am a pure entrepreneur and I made a business decision. I didn't think about my dual role as media pundit and entrepreneur." Williams now plans to self-syndicate adding, "I always feel I can sell my product better than anyone else."

    Still, as appealing as these angles are, it's hard to ignore the "misuse of public funds" angle. A program called "No Child Left Behind" under-funded to the tune of about $7 billion a year - in effect leaving more than four million children behind - allocates a quarter of a million dollars in program funds (read taxpayer dollars) to pay a pundit to promote the failing program. Congressman George Miller, the top Democrat on the House Education Committee and co-author of NCLB, characterized the contract with Williams as "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal," due to that pesky ban on using public funds for propaganda. What was the official response? The administration blamed the Department of Education, whose spokesman John Gibbons said that the contract followed standard government procedures, but added there were no plans for "similar outreach." So what's the moral of the story? One man's illegal covert propaganda is another man's outreach.

    While each of these angles certainly makes for a tasty scandal story, they are all pieces of a much bigger story, one that is decidedly less delicious, and one that the mainstream media has consistently missed. This isn't just a story about a self-serving pundit "entrepreneur," or the erosion of public trust in the media, or hypocrisy, or using covert propaganda to sell controversial Bush programs like Medicare reform and NCLB, or the misuse of taxpayer dollars, or the undermining of the American people's trust in the public sector.

    It is the story of the conservative movement and its well-oiled marketing machine; a packaging and distribution system of ideas that has been shaping American public opinion for more than a quarter century. It is also one of the most important stories behind the 2004 election.

    While Democrats are still debating whether John Kerry was likeable enough or whether the Party ought to change its position on gay marriage and gun control, they are failing to see the big picture. What they were up against wasn't a poor debater, his Machiavellian consultant, and a portfolio of privatization policies, but a well-established, conservative movement with media outlets, think tanks, foundations and advocacy organizations as well as a host of pundits, journalists, consultants, and politicians all working collaboratively to advance their right-wing agenda (and many of the latter, like Williams, working the double shift as "entrepreneurs" and getting mighty rich).

    While the leaders of the conservative movement like to boast that the power of their movement lies in the power of its ideas, the ideas of today's conservative movement are the same old failed policies from years gone by, spit-shined and with user-friendly names. The power of the conservative movement is not in its ideas, rather it is in the marketing of these ideas, primarily through effective packaging, promotion and distribution.

    Take for example the Heritage Foundation, the foremost conservative think tank in America today. Paul Weyrich, Heritage's founder, attributes the ascendancy of the conservative movement to what he calls "the four M's: mission, money, management and marketing." The former director of Heritage's Academic Bank, Willa Johnson, explained: "Dealing with the academic community can be frustrating ... This community lacks marketing. We do that. They have an expertise and they don't know how to get it into channels. Heritage is an institution by which they can do that." What channels? According to Heritage's president Edwin Feulner, "We stress an efficient and effective delivery system [of ideas]. Production is one side; marketing is equally important ... Our targets are the policy-makers and the opinion-making elite ... the public gets it from them."

    Indeed, according to the Heritage Foundation's annual report, in the first quarter of 2002, Heritage Foundation "policy experts" briefed three Cabinet secretaries, 33 senators, 48 members of Congress and 164 senior administration officials. That's almost 250 senior policymakers in just three months time. In terms of reaching the "opinion-making elite," as many of Heritage's spokespersons were seen on television in 2002 alone as during the entire 1990s. They appeared on more than 600 television broadcasts, more than 1,000 radio broadcasts, and in approximately 8,000 articles and editorials.

    But it's not just the Heritage Foundation that markets conservative policies. William Baroody of the American Enterprise Institute, the first conservative think tank and the second most prominent in the nation, said, "I make no bones about marketing. We pay as much attention to the dissemination of product as to the content." What's more, today with distribution channels like Fox News, Sinclair Broadcast Group, and Clear Channel, conservatives are increasingly marketing their ideas directly to the public.

    Armstrong Williams, Karen Ryan and Ketchum PR are all bit players in what is a big budget, major studio production. Even George W. Bush is just one of the actors in this production. The real story here is about the conservative movement and the ways that that movement - primarily through the marketing of conservative ideas - has molded and continues to mold public opinion in America. Conservatives are beating progressives with an effective marketing machine. However, no such infrastructure exists on the left.

    While clearly conservatives' tactics (i.e., bribing pundit entrepreneurs and faking news spots) are deplorable, progressives can learn from their overarching marketing strategy. Progressives must frame their ideas in ways that resonate with the American public and disseminate those ideas through a variety of diverse channels in a coordinated effort.

    The hopes of the Democratic Party in 2008 rest on one key question: will progressives spend the next four years viewing the world through the same narrow scope of the past, or will they embrace the big picture and see that in order to change the direction of the country, they must effectively counter the conservative movement?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Williams: I Am Not Alone
    By David Corn
    The Nation

    Monday 10 January 2005

    It was a rare moment of talk-show unanimity. On the set of the Fox News Washington bureau, host Tony Snow, fellow guest Linda Chavez (a conservative pundit), and I were slamming Armstrong Williams, a rightwing columnist and talk show host. USA Today had reported - as you probably know - that Williams had been paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars by the Bush administration to promote its No Child Left Behind education bill. And Williams, who supported the legislation in his column and as a cable news talking head, had not bothered to inform his audiences or the folks who book him at CNN, Fox, and MSNBC that he was a shill on the Bush payroll.

    Snow was shaking his head at Williams' indiscretion, and Chavez was upset and joked that she had received bupkis from the White House. Prior to going on air, she had complained that ArmstrongGate had caused some people to assume that she and other conservative commentators were also riding this gravy train. Since the story broke on Friday, she said, several people had asked her how much she had received from the Bush administration. She was pissed at Williams for conduct that was raising questions about the whole cadre of rightwing pundits. During our non-debate on Williams, I noted that it was a waste of taxpayer money to pay Williams for supporting the Bush administration, which he seemed quite willing to do for free. And I wondered aloud how this contract had come to be.

    After our segment finished, Chavez and I headed to the green room, and there he was: Armstrong Williams. He was waiting to go on air to defend himself. I've known him a long time; we've often sparred, in friendly fashion, on these shouting-head shows. I shook my head and said, "Armstrong, Armstrong, Armstrong...." He was quick with his main talking point: "It was bad judgment, Dave. Bad judgment." His phone rang. He answered it, said hello, and then told the person on the other end, "It was bad judgment. You know, just bad judgment." I was reminded that in addition to being a pundit, Williams, a leading African-American conservative and Clarence Thomas protégé, is a PR specialist with his own firm. Not too long ago, Michael Jackson called him for advice. Now he had himself for a client, and, heeding conventional crisis-management strategy, he was practicing strict message discipline: bad judgment, bad judgment, bad judgment.

    As we chatted, Chavez politely expressed her anger at Williams. This scandal, she noted, would provide ammunition to those who dismiss minority conservatives as race sellouts who have been bought off by the Republicans. (She is Mexican-American.) Williams absorbed her point, acting contrite.

    I asked if Williams had yet been conducted by the inspector general at the Education Department, the agency that had awarded the contract that supplied him $241,000 for promoting the NCLB measure within the African-American community. Representative George Miller, the ranking Democrat on the education committee, and other House Democrats had already called for an investigation. Why should the IG contact me? Williams replied, noting he had been merely a subcontractor. Any thorough investigation, I remarked, would include questioning the subcontractor. He scratched his head. "Funny," he said. "I thought this [contract] was a blessing at the time."

    And then Williams violated a PR rule: he got off-point. "This happens all the time," he told me. "There are others." Really? I said. Other conservative commentators accept money from the Bush administration? I asked Williams for names. "I'm not going to defend myself that way," he said. The issue right now, he explained, was his own mistake. Well, I said, what if I call you up in a few weeks, after this blows over, and then ask you? No, he said.

    Does Williams really know something about other rightwing pundits? Or was he only trying to minimize his own screw-up with a momentary embrace of a trumped-up everybody-does-it defense? I could not tell. But if the IG at the Department of Education or any other official questions Williams, I suggest he or she ask what Williams meant by this comment. And if Williams is really sorry for this act of "bad judgment" and for besmirching the profession of rightwing punditry, shouldn't he do what he can to guarantee that those who watch pundits on the cable news networks and read political columnists receive conservative views that are independent and untainted by payoffs from the Bush administration or other political outfits?

    Armstrong, please, help us all protect the independence of the conservative commentariat. If you are not alone, tell us who else has yielded to bad judgment.

source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011205F.shtml
------------------
source: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml
Face The Nation - Sunday - January 8, 2005

SCHIEFFER: “ Finally today, news that the Department of Education paid talk show host Armstrong Williams what amounts to a $ 240,000 bribe to promote its No Child Left Behind legislation is so outrageous it borders on laughable. Except I am not amused when the government uses my money, tax dollars, to try to con me. Every large organization including CBS has a few stupid people around and on occasion they do stupid things. But what I don’t understand is why all this caused hardly a ripple at the White House. The only response from there that I could find in yesterday’s papers was that a spokesman referred all questions to the Department of Education. Well, why go there for answers where the whole loony idea originated, the same department that had earlier spent some $ 700,000 on a survey to find out which reporters favored No Child Left Behind and which opposed it ?

I cannot imagine that the president or anyone else with half a brain thought this was a good idea. But wouldn’t you think the White House would want us to know that ? Has the administration become so convinced of its own righteousness that it refuses to denounce even this sort of thing ? Did they think we wouldn’t notice ? Forget the details. Trying to corrupt the news media with bribes is wrong. If the Department of Education people haven’t figured that out, then the presidnet should educate them. A good lesson plan might include firing those responsible. Then he should promise the rest of us it will never happen again.

That’s it for us. We’ll see you next week right here on Face The Nation “
---------------------
Letter from David Brock, RE: Armstrong Williams
January 7, 2005

Kevin Klose
President and Chief Executive
National Public Radio
635 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001

David D. Smith
Chief Executive Officer
Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Inc.
10706 Beaver Dam Road
Hunt Valley, MD 21030

Roger E. Ailes
Chairman and CEO
FOX News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

Jonathan Rodgers
CEO
TV One
101 Wayne Avenue, 10th floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910

David D. Williams
President and CEO
Tribune Media Services
435 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, IL 60611

Dear Sirs:

I'm writing today to bring to your attention a report in the January 7 edition of USA Today that conservative commentator Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 by the U.S. government to promote a Bush administration education initiative -- a financial relationship he failed to disclose to readers, listeners, and viewers.

If the facts as reported by USA Today are correct, Mr. Williams was being secretly paid by the Bush administration to promote government policies at the same time that he was participating in public debate on those policies. I presume that you are as troubled by this gross conflict of interest as I am. I respectfully ask that you immediately review your professional relationship with Mr. Williams and take whatever actions you may deem appropriate, including severing that relationship, on the grounds that Mr. Williams's integrity has been irrevocably damaged by taking money to influence the public debate without disclosing those payments.

In my view, the payments, if made -- as well as Mr. Williams's failure to disclose the payments -- would disqualify Mr. Williams from appearing in the media as an independent commentator.

Yours,

David Brock
President and CEO
Media Matters for America

source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200501070009
--------------------
Fake news coupled with deception is a disgraceful use of taxpayers' money
By Asheville Citizen-Times
Jan. 7, 2005 6:19 p.m.

"Congress has prohibited propaganda. . And it's propaganda.'' - Melanie Sloan, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics.

USA Today reported Friday that Armstrong Williams, a well- known commentator, was being paid for his opinions by, well, by us, the American taxpayers.

The newspaper reported Williams, one of those modern media creations who appears in print and is omnipresent on radio and television, is being paid by the Bush administration to the tune of $240,000 to promote the No Child Left Behind program.

Williams said he saw how people could think the deal was unethical, but told USA Today, "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in.''

Frankly, most people could believe in the Tooth Fairy for $240,000.

We'll say this for Williams: He held his end of the bargain, tirelessly promoting NCLB.

About the nicest thing you can say of this affair is that Williams is like the old definition of an honest politician: "one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.''

One of the requirements was for Williams to interview Rod Paige, Education Secretary. Williams went the extra mile, even penning a column praising Paige for calling the National Education Association a terrorist group.

Let's be blunt: what Williams has done is unethical and quite possibly illegal. It's the latest in a round of disingenuous approaches toward molding public opinion hatched by this administration.

The deal was part of an arrangement with the Ketchum public relations firm, which among other things has produced fake new reports ("video news releases") for distribution to local television stations to pitch its Medicare drug prescription plan.

Another recently disclosed "news report'' by the Office of National Drug Control Policy featured a pitch called "Urging Parents to Get the Facts Straight on Teen Marijuana Use,'' by "reporter'' Mike Morris. The Medicare and drug pieces were distributed for use by local television stations, which is fine. They didn't disclose that they were essentially government press releases.

Now, the government should provide information on public health and its policy initiatives. But if it's a good idea you shouldn't have to be deceptive about it. Public relations should be labeled as such, not hidden as legitimate reporting. What Williams has done would get him fired immediately at this newspaper. We're talking fired with extreme prejudice. Fired like, if fired out of a cannon, he'd break free of earth's orbit.

If it's fake news in fun, it's called parody. Leave that to Jon Stewart.

If it's fake news and it's deceptive, it's called propaganda. Leave that to Pravda.

We, as citizens and taxpayers, should demand it end immediately.

And as taxpayers, we should also demand our money back.

source: http://www.citizen-times.com/cache/article/editorial/73446.shtml

----------------------
Read his past colums at http://www.townhall.com/columnists/armstrongwilliams/archive.shtml

My apology
Armstrong Williams (back to web version) | Send

January 10, 2005
Dear readers:

In 2003, I agreed to run a paid ad on my syndicated television show, promoting the Department of Education’s No Child Left Behind Act. I subsequently used my column space to support that legislation. This represents an obvious conflict of interests. People have used this conflict of interests to portray my column as being paid for by the Bush Administration.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

At the same time, I understand that I exercised bad judgment in running paid advertising  for an issue that I frequently write about in my column. People need to know that my column is uncorrupted by any outside influences. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for my bad judgment, and to better explain the circumstances.

In 2003 Ketchum Communications contacted a small PR firm that I own, Graham Williams Group, to buy ad space on a television show that I own and host. The ad was to promote The Department of Education’s  “No Child Left Behind” plan. I have long felt that school vouchers hold the greatest promise of ending the racial education gap in this country. We need to hold schools accountable for their failures and create incentives to change. That is why I have vigorously supported school vouchers for the past decade—in print, on TV, during media appearances and in lectures.  I believe that school vouchers represent the greatest chance of stimulating hope for young, inner city school children—often of color.  In fact, I am a board member of Black Americans for Educational Options (BAEO), because I feel that school choice plans hold the promise of a new civil rights movement. 
 
In the past I have used my column space to convey the promise of school options. I continued to do so, even after receiving money to run a series of ads on my television show promoting the “No Child Left Behind” act. I now realize that I exercised poor judgment in continuing to write about a topic which my PR firm was being paid to promote.

The fact is, I run a small business. I am CEO and manage the syndication and advertising for my television show. In between juggling my commentaries and media appearances, I stepped over the line. This has never happened before. In fact, my company has never worked on a government contract. Nor have we ever received compensation for an issue that I subsequently reported on. This will never happen again.  I now realize that I have to create inseparable boundaries between my role as a small businessman and my role as an independent commentator.

I also understand that people must be able to trust that my commentary is unbiased. Please know that I supported school vouchers long before the Department of Education ran a single ad on my TV Show.  I did not change my views just because my PR firm was receiving paid advertising promoting the No Child Left Behind Act. I did however exercise bad judgment by accepting advertising for an issue that I frequently write about in my column. I apologize for this bad judgment, for  creating questions in people’s minds as to whether my commentary was sincere, and for bringing shame and embarrassment to the newspapers that run my commentary.

I accept full responsibility for my lack of good judgment. I am paying the price. Tribune Media has cancelled my column. And I have learned a valuable lesson. I just want to assure you that this will never happen again, and to ask for your forgiveness.

I hope that we can put this mistake behind us, and that I can continue to bring the same unique and impassioned perspective that I brought to this space in the past.

Sincerely,
Armstrong Williams
source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/printaw20050110.shtml

---------------------

This just in for KXYL's James Williamson who tried like hell to spin this story down on todays show:

Conservative columnist who took $240k from Bush criticized NAACP for sexual harassment and economic “improprieties” after settling his own sexual harassment suit

Armstrong Williams lashed out at NAACP for sex harassment after settling harassment suit himself

By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor

The conservative columnist who was fired after accepting $240,000 to promote Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ law rebuked the NAACP for “charges of sexual harassment and economic improprieties” after settling a sexual harassment suit himself, RAW STORY has learned.

Just last month, in an article discussing Kweisi Mfume’s resignation from the nation’s largest civil rights lobby, Williams said the NAACP was “foundering amidst charges of sexual harassment and economic improprieties” when Mfume was hired.

Mfume, he asserted, righted the ship–cleaning up the organization’s debt and concurrently issuing overtures to Republicans. But their veteran leader, Julian Bond, who in Williams’ piece was equated with an organization plagued by harassment, economic scandal and stridently anti-Bush messages–forced him out.

Williams, RAW STORY has discovered, settled accounts for the same misdeeds himself.

In 1997, Williams was sued in a massive $200,000 50-charge sexual harassment suit for repeatedly kissing his once male trainer Stephen Gregory who he had promoted repeatedly into his talk-show staff. Gregory claimed Williams had also grabbed his buttocks and genitals and climbed into bed with him on business trips. After rebuffing him, Gregory alleged, the pundit retaliated by reducing his pay and subsequently firing him.

At the time, the Williams had just teased an explosive quote from then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott who said that gays should be treated like those who have a problem with “alcohol … or sex addiction … or kleptomaniacs.”

Williams roundly supported this view.

Gregory’s attorney, Mickey Wheatley, a former lawyer with the Lamda Legal Defense Fund, a gay civil rights group, told the San Francisco Chronicle he thought it “ironic for Trent Lott to be making these offensive pronouncements when he’s sitting across from somebody who’s been accused of the most abusive kind of conduct of a homosexual nature.'’

Wheatley added: Williams “believes that (homosexuality) to be a sin, and so he must be in great pain over it, but he’s inflicting pain on others with his pronouncements. The way he treated my client would be indicative of what happens when you try to repress something as basic about yourself as your sexuality. My advice to him would be to get a boyfriend and leave his employees alone.'’

Williams failed to get the suit dismissed in 1998. His once-trainer presented an affidavit from a man who claimed Armstrong propositioned him in 1996 and also had testimony from an ex-intern who said he had brushed off Williams’ advances his first day on the job.

“The whole thing is an attempt to embarrass and humiliate Mr. Williams,'’ his attorney, Peter Axelrad, told the Chronicle. “We deny it. We deny all of it. We have full confidence that my client will be vindicated.'’

The columnist settled the case out of court in early 1999.

source: http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=536