Saturday, January 08, 2005
Paying for Favorable Coverage
Both the Washington Post and the New York Times offer stories about commentator Armstrong Williams and the $240,000 he received from the Department of Education to promote the No Child Left Behind law.
There are several sad stories here. First, that a respected African-American commentator trashed his reputation and his career accepting money to promote government actions without notifying the public of the contract. The fact that Williams simultaneously runs a public relations firm, writes a syndicated column, and produces a television show raises questions about at what point a journalist ceases to be a journalist and instead becomes a public relations expert.
Second, that the Department of Education felt it necessary to pay a commentator in order to receive positive coverage of NCLB. That law is facing opposition from both liberals and conservatives, and may, in fact, with the appointment of Margaret Spellings, face significant changes, as reported by the Washington Post Friday.
But the most disturbing aspect of this story is that the government is actively spending money in order to promote unpopular laws. The fact that the DoE is paying a public relations firm (Ketchum Inc.) nearly one million dollars a year to promote and gauge support for or opposition to NCLB reveals that government officials may see citizens and taxpayers as gullible, pliable consumers that can be manipulated through advertising and positive comments by trusted journalists. Nothing prevents the government from passing unpopular laws not in the public interest, and then spending millions of taxpayer dollars to convince taxpayers and citizens that those laws are in their best interest. Without an independent media, or hopefully ever-vigilant bloggers, we may as well live in an Orwellian-Huxleyan state where lies are truth and the masses can be distracted by artificial crises and entertainment.
In 1913, Congress passed the Gillett Amendment, which states "Appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose." The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a website with several lobbying and ethics guidelines, but all seem to be directed at preventing public relations activities targeting pending legislation, not laws already on the books.
For more information about the intersection of public relations and governmental action, check out Spinwatch and PR Watch.
This story does raise the obvious question: What other prominent journalists and commentators have received money from the government to promote governmental programs?
There are several sad stories here. First, that a respected African-American commentator trashed his reputation and his career accepting money to promote government actions without notifying the public of the contract. The fact that Williams simultaneously runs a public relations firm, writes a syndicated column, and produces a television show raises questions about at what point a journalist ceases to be a journalist and instead becomes a public relations expert.
Second, that the Department of Education felt it necessary to pay a commentator in order to receive positive coverage of NCLB. That law is facing opposition from both liberals and conservatives, and may, in fact, with the appointment of Margaret Spellings, face significant changes, as reported by the Washington Post Friday.
But the most disturbing aspect of this story is that the government is actively spending money in order to promote unpopular laws. The fact that the DoE is paying a public relations firm (Ketchum Inc.) nearly one million dollars a year to promote and gauge support for or opposition to NCLB reveals that government officials may see citizens and taxpayers as gullible, pliable consumers that can be manipulated through advertising and positive comments by trusted journalists. Nothing prevents the government from passing unpopular laws not in the public interest, and then spending millions of taxpayer dollars to convince taxpayers and citizens that those laws are in their best interest. Without an independent media, or hopefully ever-vigilant bloggers, we may as well live in an Orwellian-Huxleyan state where lies are truth and the masses can be distracted by artificial crises and entertainment.
In 1913, Congress passed the Gillett Amendment, which states "Appropriated funds may not be used to pay a publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose." The U.S. Department of Agriculture has a website with several lobbying and ethics guidelines, but all seem to be directed at preventing public relations activities targeting pending legislation, not laws already on the books.
For more information about the intersection of public relations and governmental action, check out Spinwatch and PR Watch.
This story does raise the obvious question: What other prominent journalists and commentators have received money from the government to promote governmental programs?
