Sitting here wondering what I would do. If I had just wrote a column that states Dubya has put together the best cabinet of any President this century and I pick up the phone and Chaney is offering me $50,000 to promote the Bush cabinet, do I take it? It is clearly something I already believe, I am not altering my views, and it seems like easy money paid to me wink wink consulting firm.

As I mentioned, I will be shocked if the Bush Administration invented this. Give it time, someone will unearth other payments from the Clinton White House.

 

And I will be shocked if it's reported!

Sitting here wondering what I would do. If I had just wrote a column that states Dubya has put together the best cabinet of any President this century and I pick up the phone and Chaney is offering me $50,000 to promote the Bush cabinet, do I take it? It is clearly something I already believe, I am not altering my views, and it seems like easy money paid to me wink wink consulting firm.

I think that's probably what happened here. I don't like this. I think it's unethical. And it stinks. But, I know it's different, but how different is this from a Rush Limbaugh telling me to buy a Bose Wave Radio all the while he's listening to a Sony? Besidess the tax dollars, what's the major difference?

You know the Bose commercial is a commercial.

 

Yes, the media never reported a single Clinton scandal

You know the Bose commercial is a commercial.

 

Yes, the media never reported a single Clinton scandal

Yes, I know it's a commercial, but they do the "commercial" within the context of the shows now. Even Paul Harvey says "Page 2" when he does a commercial for JB Weld.

It's obivous when someone is doing a commercial on the radio. With the exception of Paul Harvey (but if you're a fan, you'd know quite easily that the ads are on Page 2 and Page 4 of his 5 page newscast at noon), there is a very clear line of demarcation - they usually stop the show altogether, and the "live read" commercials are more often than not, prerecorded.

 

There is a big difference between a paid endorsement running in a commercial and a government buying off a critic.

And I will be shocked if it's reported!

 

Seriously, do you really believe that?

Seriously, do you really believe that?

No, but extensively? Yes.

It's obivous when someone is doing a commercial on the radio. With the exception of Paul Harvey (but if you're a fan, you'd know quite easily that the ads are on Page 2 and Page 4 of his 5 page newscast at noon), there is a very clear line of demarcation - they usually stop the show altogether, and the "live read" commercials are more often than not, prerecorded.

 

There is a big difference between a paid endorsement running in a commercial and a government buying off a critic.

 

I didn't see where the government bought off a critic. They went to low level fans who generally agreed with them. Which is one reason I think it was a waste of money. Give it to Rush, he's got a bigger audience.

No, but extensively? Yes.

 

I would guess it would get about as much as this has, which isn't all that much. Remember the frenzy with Monica? The impeachment trial? This isn't close to that magnitude, nor should it be.

I would guess it would get about as much as this has, which isn't all that much. Remember the frenzy with Monica? The impeachment trial? This isn't close to that magnitude, nor should it be.

No, I mean if it came out in addition to this story. If it came out exclusive of this, I think it would get about as much coverage as this has.

No, I mean if it came out in addition to this story. If it came out exclusive of this, I think it would get about as much coverage as this has.

 

The press is usually good at tearing each other up, if given a chance. In a nice, collegiate sort of way. I would be interested if we paid any columnists during Fords WIN (Whip Inflation Now) campaign. I know there was money spent to promote and make Americans feel confident about our economy. Sadly, in reality, it took a few more years, and a giant like Reagan to make that happen.

http://antiwar.com/justin/

 

Its a really good article about previous uses of PR to create lies in the media to get us into things that are most definitely not good at all.

 

And MrEye, I don't think that it will have much impact/newsworthyness if Clinton was found to do the same thing because he's been out of office for 5 years now. Plus, a lot of his activities (NAFTA, GATT etc.) were quite beneficial to large conglomerate business. So I wouldn't doubt that he probably did. However, the Bushies and the neo-cons have greatly increased the funding of public relations much more than the previous administrations.

 

The CIA in the past paid off journalists in a disinfo campaign during Vietnam and PR firms lied to increase war furvor during Gulf War I so it would not surprise me that there are a lot more payoffs to be found.

There is a big difference between a paid endorsement running in a commercial and a government buying off a critic.

 

DAMNIT, WHERE'S MY CHECK????????

I am SO ready to be bought off.....all they'd have to do is fill in the blanks:

"I believe that ___________ is the best ________________ in the history of ______________. Anyone who dares to criticize _______________ is UNAMERICAN, and surely is supporting the destruction of our way of life!!!!!!"

Now where was I.....oh yes......DAMNIT, WHERE'S MY CHECK???????"