Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/26/05 3:49 pm:
>>>Guess you don't support the idea of a *free press* (and media)???
Interesting. <<<

Ummm, Chou, "free press" doesn't mean that it doesn't cost anything to get media space. It means that they are free to print whatever they want for whatever reason they want... including if they are paid for it.

Frankly the idea of muzzling anyone who is paid to push a specific idea is anti-free-press.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 01/26/05 3:51 pm:
>>She doesn't have a side<<

Un-be-lievable. Since when does only one party have a right to their side of the story? It is not unethical for someone whose job is to "write, edit, research and educate on marriage" to get paid to write, edit, research and educate on marriage.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/26/05 4:00 pm:
One last point Chou.

Bush is not stopping free press by paying for someone to push his agenda. The other side of the issue is perfectly welcome to print their own rebuttals to Bush's agenda... and seem to do so quite vociferously. This is not and has nver been a 'free-press' issue.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 01/26/05 4:25 pm:
And if being on the government payroll means one is no longer allowed to express their opinions, I can think of a number of senators that should have been gagged yesterday.

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 01/26/05 9:30 pm:
Choux-

I should had proof read my reply. I used poor grammar and my fingers failed to keep up with my thoughts resulting in missing words throughout my commentary. I've had a busy day! I think you can make it out though...if not just ask.



Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/27/05 8:30 am:
Disclosure :For the record, I am not now being, nor have I ever been, paid anything by anyone in the Bush administration for expressing my support for President Bush’s policies. If anyone would like to pay me, I would be happy to take their money. I would, of course, disclose it, and I would still only say or write what I would have said or written anyway.Tom

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 01/27/05 9:55 am:

Hello:

Yup. Bush has the best coverage money can buy. This isn't about Bush and his sleazy activities. Stuff like this isn't surprising from his crew. What's surprising, is the lack of ethics in the "bought" journalists.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/27/05 10:02 am:
Elliot ;

There is nothing wrong in getting paid to write opinions . There is alot wrong in getting paid by the government and not disclosing that fact .Did you know that when she wrote for 'National Review' or 'Weekly Standard ' that she was in fact being a spokesperson for the government ? I wonder if her and William's contract had a secrecy clause or something similar that prevented them from disclosure of the agreements. If not, I just don’t understand why they didn’t share it with their readers .Podhoretz gets paid for his columns (as far as I know ) from private not public funding .There is the difference.I have no problem with the gvt. paying for publicity but it should be an open process.

I am not sure of it ,but most times if a columnist's piece appears on another publication there will be some kind of disclaimer where the column originated from . If an op-ed piece is written from someone else ;normally there is some kind of biographical reference at the end of the piece.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 01/27/05 12:24 pm:
ex, and others who feel the same,

According to Gallagher, she was not being paid for inserting her views in 'news', for 'coverage' of the administration, 'promoting' a Bush agenda, or 'publicity' of a Bush policy as Williams was. She, as a marriage expert, was being paid for the work she did for the government...consulting, research, and writing government brochures and papers.

Because she is also a columnist does that disqualify her from using her expertise for the government or from still having and expressing opinions? Doesn't her expertise and work she'd done for the government uniquely qualify her to write a column on the subject?

How many of you have forgotten to cover your a** on all potential future difficulties? Have we as a society gotten to the point that we must offer disclaimers for everything?

For the record, Universal Press Syndicate, also sees no cause to drop Gallagher as a columnist, so this 'scandal' is going nowhere.

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 01/27/05 12:51 pm:
As if it wasn't hard enough for a conservative comentator to get a footing in the media and establish credibility ;now all of them are going to live with the potential taint of being on the dole. I thought her statement was at best half -hearted :

I was paid to produce particular research and writing products (articles, brochures, presentations) which I produced.

then she wrote:

But the real truth is that it never occurred to me. On reflection, I think Howard is right. 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.


Again ;my issue is that if she is being paid to write for the government then she should disclose this information . It doesn't in any way prevent her from writing a column on any subject ,but when a public official writes an op-ed we certainly know they are in the public employ.Disclosure of all financial arrangements bearing on an intellectual’s work product, especially money from the government, is the best protection against allegations of impropriety, and folks in Gallagher’s position who want to take money from the government for legitimate work from the government, should find a way to list those contracts.

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 01/27/05 1:59 pm:
I don't disagree a person in a position such as Gallagher should disclosed this type of information, they should. My point is, it's being treated as if she had done what Williams did in being paid to use her position and audience to promote a Bush agenda, but she was paid for legitimate work for the government in a field of her expertise.

Choux thinks it was Bush "buying the media," and I agree that's very wrong, but that's not what happened.

Ex wants to know his 'news' has "not been bought and paid for", and I agree, but it wasn't...she is not a "news" reporter.

Clete implies it was "Cash for comment", but it wasn't.

Bobby mentioned "Buying airtime, paying to people to promote, or being given free lip service", but that is not what happened here either.

Was she in error not to disclose this? Yes, but let's compare apples to apples. A journalist being paid for legitimate work in her field of expertise is one thing, buying air time and being paid to promote an agenda is another entirely. Williams screwed up big time, he knowingly accepted a contract for big bucks to promote an agenda. Gallagher did a job for the government and happened to later write an article...what is so scandalous about that?

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 01/27/05 11:23 pm:
Elliot-

Dan Rather paid and is still paying for his mistake. Falsifying documents or being bamboozled into believing those documents were real will be his idiot legacy. I know two wrongs don't make a right and if you want to blame Kerry for that...I'll understand. What I'm saying is that what happened has far reaching implications. Bush should had not ever permitted such a charade to an honorable Vietnam veteren to have ocurred. He opened pandora's box on the campaigning future and disgraced a veteren in doing so. I will hold his feet to the fire, yea he's to blame.


Another thing if Bush or any politicians, past, present, or future, uses a cash for comments agenda with their money it's one thing...but when it's our money they are using then it becomes all of our business.




Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/31/05 5:27 pm:
Bobby,

I actually DON'T hold Kerry responsible for Dan Rather's idiocy. There are plenty of things that I hold Kerry responsible for, but "Documentgate" isn't one of them. I do blame Kerry for having brought up the issue of military service, and then trying to manipulate the media when the scrutiny turned to HIM with the SwiftVet ads. But I don't blame him for Rather's idiocy and purely partisan actions.

>>>Dan Rather paid and is still paying for his mistake. <<<

HOW? He hasn't paid, and he will not pay for this "mistake" (which was nothing of the sort; it was a deliberate attempt to slander the President on the eve of the election with the intent of changing the outcome of that election. We call that "yellow journalism".)

But even assuming that he is paying for his mistake, there is a huge difference between what Rather did, and what Gallagher has 'done'. Gallagher was paid to give information to the government regarding marriage and family matters. She was not paid to diseminate information FROM the government, and to the best of anyone's knowledge, she has not done so. She hasn't even been accused of doing so. Rather used his position as a reporter to effect a political outcome. Gallagher is not accused of any such thing. The only thing that Gallagher is accused of is doing a project for the government while at the same time writting an op-ed column.

Like I said, this "scandal" is turning out to be a pretty big nothing.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 02/01/05 11:06 pm:
Elliot-

I'm from south-central Texas and trust me Dan is embarrased and is looked upon in a new light. It effected his career and forced him to resign in part. Your right the scandal with Bush will probably turn out be small potatoes. Most scandals usually are insignificant with exception to a few in history such as Watergate. My point was in the future ramifications of other honorable serving vets that might choose a run at office.



Bobby