All the President's Newsmen (Rich / NYT)

[struggle4progress]

<snip> I do not mean to minimize the CBS News debacle and other recent journalistic outrages at The New York Times and elsewhere. But the Jan. 7 edition of CNN's signature show can stand as an exceptionally ripe paradigm of what is happening to the free flow of information in a country in which a timid news media, the fierce (and often covert) Bush administration propaganda machine, lax and sometimes corrupt journalistic practices, and a celebrity culture all combine to keep the public at many more than six degrees of separation from anything that might resemble the truth.

On this particular "Crossfire," the featured guest was Armstrong Williams, a conservative commentator, talk-show host and newspaper columnist (for papers like The Washington Times and The Detroit Free Press, among many others, according to his Web site). Thanks to investigative reporting by USA Today, he had just been unmasked as the frontman for a scheme in which $240,000 of taxpayers' money was quietly siphoned to him through the Department of Education and a private p.r. firm so that he would "regularly comment" upon (translation: shill for) the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind policy in various media venues during an election year. Given that "Crossfire" was initially conceived as a program for tough interrogation and debate, you'd think that the co-hosts still on duty after Mr. Carlson's departure might try to get some answers about this scandal, whose full contours, I suspect, we are only just beginning to discern. <snip>

Last year Mr. Novak had failed to fully disclose - until others in the press called him on it - that his son is the director of marketing for Regnery, the company that published "Unfit for Command," the Swift boat veterans' anti-Kerry screed that Mr. Novak flogged relentlessly on CNN and elsewhere throughout the campaign. Nor had he fully disclosed, as Mary Jacoby of Salon reported, that Regnery's owner also publishes his subscription newsletter ($297 a year). Nor has Mr. Novak fully disclosed why he has so far eluded any censure in the federal investigation of his outing of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Plame, while two other reporters, Judith Miller of The Times and Matt Cooper of Time, are facing possible prison terms in the same case. In this context, Mr. Novak's "full disclosure" of his friendship with Mr. Williams is so anomalous that it raised many more questions than it answers. <snip>

But perhaps the most fascinating Williams TV appearance took place in December 2003, the same month that he was first contracted by the government to receive his payoffs. At a time when no one in television news could get an interview with Dick Cheney, Mr. Williams, of all "journalists," was rewarded with an extended sit-down with the vice president for the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a nationwide owner of local stations affiliated with all the major networks. In that chat, Mr. Cheney criticized the press for its coverage of Halliburton and denounced "cheap shot journalism" in which "the press portray themselves as objective observers of the passing scene, when they obviously are not objective." <snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/arts/16rich.html?pagewanted=1&th&oref=login

[rzemanfl]

1. I'm too new to start a topic and this is unrelated but Yahoo

has this crazy poll up that says that 60% of Americans are "hopeful" about *'s second term, that "almost" 2/3 think he is "likeable, intelligent and honest!" and other bizarre things. This is at http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20050117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inaugural_poll. The link to the underlying data doesn't work. I think they are doing some creative arguing from the poll results, otherwise, the country has gone stark raving mad.

[lancdem]

2. People are always hopeful before an inauguration

That's human nature. The poll also says 47 percent of the public is worried about his second term. That's an awfully high number. I wouldn't worry about the intelligent part. I think many voters don't want to admit to themselves Bush is no Einstein.

[rzemanfl]

4. But "honest?"

He is a stupid, lying jerk, that 2/3 can't see this is tough to believe. "Likeable" I can live with, village idiots can be "likeable."

[struggle4progress]

7. Yeah yeah.

Even Fox says he's lost at least a point since November and that over half of Americans think the country deteriorated during his first term. Pew says his approval rating is 50% and over half of Americans are dissatisfied with the way things are going. AP says his approval and disapproval ratings are exactly equal and that over half the people think the country is on the wrong track. Gallup says the country is evenly split on Social SEcurity reform. Rasmussen says a majority of Americans don't think we're safer since 9/11. November polling data, recently released, says nobody really likes the Administration's drug pricing policies policy.

The Yahoo article is fluff. What are people gonna say: "Next year is gonna suck so bad, I can't think about it"? Of course people are optimistic: it's the only way to be, even if it is insane.

Bush Approval Up Four Points In U.S.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?

Jan. 2005 Dec. 2004 Nov. 2004
Approve 52% 48% 53%
Disapprove 41% 45% 40%

Do you think things in the United States are better or worse today than five years ago?

Better 31%
Worse 54%
No change 11%

Source: Opinion Dynamics / Fox News
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 900 American registered voters, conducted on Jan. 11 and Jan. 12, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

http://www.cpod.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5560


Bush Rating Improves Before Inauguration

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Jan. 2005 Dec. 2004
Approve 50% 48%
Disapprove 43% 44%

All in all, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in this country today?

Jan. 2005 Dec. 2004
Satisfied 40% 39%
Dissatisfied 54% 54%

Source: Princeton Survey Research Associates / Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,503 American adults, conducted from Jan. 5 to Jan. 9, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

http://www.cpod.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5569


Support For Bush Falls Slightly In U.S.

Overall, do you approve, disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

Jan. 2005 Dec. 2004 Nov. 2004
Approve 49% 51% 51%
Disapprove 49% 47% 48%
Mixed feelings 2% 2% 1%

Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?

Jan. 2005 Dec. 2004 Nov. 2004
Right direction 44% 43% 46%
Wrong track 51% 52% 51%
Not sure 5% 5% 3%

Source: Ipsos-Public Affairs / Associated Press
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,001 American adults, conducted from Jan. 3 to Jan. 5, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

http://www.cpod.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5499


Americans Split Over Post-9/11 Safety

Is the U.S. safer since 9/11?
Yes 41%
No 43%

Source: Rasmussen Reports
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,000 American adults, conducted on Jan. 4 and Jan. 5, 2005. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

http://www.cpod.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5490


Social Security Overhaul Divides Americans

As you may know, a proposal has been made that would allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system. Do you favour or oppose this proposal?

Favour 48%
Oppose 48%
No opinion 4%

If this proposal becomes law, do you think it will mostly help you personally, have no effect, or mostly hurt you personally?

Help 29%
No effect 43%
Hurt 26%
No opinion 2%

Source: Gallup / CNN / USA Today
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,002 American adults,

http://www.cpod.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5476



Americans Want Drug Limitations Repealed

Do you favour or oppose Congress changing the law to allow Americans to buy prescription drugs imported from Canada if they think they can get a lower price?

Favour 73%
Oppose 21%
Don’t know 5%

Do you favour or oppose Congress changing the law to allow the federal government to use its buying power to negotiate with drug companies to try to get a lower price for prescription drugs for people on Medicare?

Favour 80%
Oppose 13%
Don’t know 7%

Source: International Communications Research (ICR) / The Kaiser Family Foundation / Harvard School of Public Health
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 700 American adults (first question) and 696 American adults (second question), conducted from Nov. 4 to Nov. 28, 2004. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

http://www.cpod.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=5544

[rzemanfl]

8. I am of the next year is going to suck so bad I don't even want

to think about it group. The thing that bothers me about these polls is the way they are written up. Right after the "election" they had one that said in its headline "Most Americans (happy, pleased, satisfied? I can't remember the word) with election outcome." "Most" turned out to be 51%! The link to the underlying results worked today, but the results aren't there.

[struggle4progress]

11. Consider joining the "I'll be so busy fighting back that I won't ...

... have time to think about whether I'm optimistic or pessimistic" group. I hear there are lots of openings.

[rzemanfl]

12. Too old to fight much, may work on a gourmet recipes with

cat food cookbook since it looks like Social Security is the next target.

[struggle4progress]

13. So you're old enough to choose your targets and to fight intelligently.

Great catfood recipe line! It would be funny if it weren't so true!

[oecher3]

3. I sure enjoyed readings this piece...

...but why is it in the ARTS section of the NYT? Wouldn't this be more of politics.
But maybe the pressure is rising and we get some more exposures soon.

[struggle4progress]

5. Moral: During political repression, pay close attention to the arts. eom

[dsc]

10. It is being treated as television criticism

the trade off is it was in the Sunday Times which has a much bigger readership.

[gristy]

6. Good Article

Thank you, Mr. Rich.

But I won't hold my breath waiting for CNN or anybody else to "dispatch some real reporters to find out just which "others" Mr. Williams is talking about and to follow his money all the way back to its source." Hah!

[rodeodance]

9. "This is a scenario out of "The Manchurian Candidate." "

yes, great article!!

This is a scenario out of "The Manchurian Candidate." Here we find Mr. Cheney criticizing the press for a sin his own government was at that same moment signing up Mr. Williams to commit. The interview is broadcast by the same company that would later order its ABC affiliates to ban Ted Koppel's "Nightline" recitation of American casualties in Iraq and then propose showing an anti-Kerry documentary, "Stolen Honor," under the rubric of "news" in prime time just before Election Day. (After fierce criticism, Sinclair retreated from that plan.) Thus the Williams interview with the vice president, implicitly presented as an example of the kind of "objective" news Mr. Cheney endorses, was in reality a completely subjective, bought-and-paid-for fake news event for a broadcast company that barely bothers to fake objectivity and both of whose chief executives were major contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign. The Soviets couldn't have constructed a more ingenious or insidious plot to bamboozle the citizenry.

Ever since Mr. Williams was exposed by USA Today, he has been stonewalling all questions about what the Bush administration knew of his activities and when it knew it. In his account, he was merely a lowly "subcontractor" of the education department. "Never was the White House ever mentioned anytime during this," he told NBC's Campbell Brown, as if that were enough to deflect Ms. Brown's observation that "the Department of Education works for the White House." For its part, the White House is saying that the whole affair is, in the words of the press secretary, Scott McClellan, "a contracting matter" and "a decision by the Department of Education." In other words, the buck stops (or started) with Rod Paige, the elusive outgoing education secretary who often appeared with Mr. Williams in his pay-for-play propaganda.

But we now know that there have been at least three other cases in which federal agencies have succeeded in placing fake news reports on television during the Bush presidency. The Department of Health and Human Services, the Census Bureau and the Office of National Drug Control Policy have all sent out news "reports" in which, to take one example, fake newsmen purport to be "reporting" why the administration's Medicare prescription-drug policy is the best thing to come our way since the Salk vaccine. So far two Government Accountability Office investigations have found that these Orwellian stunts violated federal law that prohibits "covert propaganda" purchased with taxpayers' money. But the Williams case is the first one in which a well-known talking head has been recruited as the public face for the fake news instead of bogus correspondents (recruited from p.r. companies) with generic eyewitness-news team names like Karen Ryan and Mike Morris.......