Dean Campaign Made Payments To Two Bloggers

[Freddie Stubbs]

By WILLIAM M. BULKELEY and JAMES BANDLER
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
January 14, 2005; Page B2

Howard Dean's presidential campaign hired two Internet political "bloggers" as consultants so that they would say positive things about the former governor's campaign in their online journals, according to a former high-profile Dean aide.

Zephyr Teachout, the former head of Internet outreach for Mr. Dean's campaign, made the disclosure earlier this week in her own Web log, Zonkette. She said "to be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment -- but it was very clearly, internally, our goal." The hiring of the consultants was noted in several publications at the time.

The issue of political payments to commentators has become hot following disclosures that the Bush administration paid a conservative radio and newspaper pundit, Armstrong Williams, $240,000 to plug its "No Child Left Behind" education policy.

With the growing importance of blogs -- short for Web logs -- Ms. Teachout said she thinks bloggers need to rethink their attitudes toward ethics. A blog is an online personal journal or series of postings, dealing with just about anything. Millions of people use blogs to post diatribes, rants, links to other sites and erudite analyses hourly, daily or sporadically. Some make a little money by selling ads. The Dean campaign's adroit use of the Internet helped make its long-shot effort credible.

more: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB110566243803425942,00.html?mod=todays_free_feature

[trotsky]

1. Oh I get it.

This was thrown out to deflect criticism of the * Administration paying media whores to promote policies during their shows.

Because sending a little money to bloggers is exactly the same thing, right?

Sheesh, this is so lame.

"See? Democrats do it too! Waah waah waah!"

[Must_B_Free]

24. So what are they saying then?

That the news media is no more accurate than blogs?

[trotsky]

27. That's a good way to spin it!

And considering how Repukes love FAUX News as their primary source, I'd say that's a highly appropriate comparison!

[lostnfound]

90. And that our TAX DOLLARS are no different than political contributions?

nt

[ooglymoogly]

31. this is so idiotic it is just lame propaganda

dean was not spending taxpayer money!!!!!!!! that is the crux. spending tax payer money for partisan causes. oh and look it was in that liberal rag the wall street journal. are they really that dumb?
or do they just hope the people are. after all so far they have been just that dumb.

[trotsky]

36. To answer your question,

Yes, they really are that dumb. * followers will accept this as being justification. "Both sides do it", despite "it" being COMPLETELY different.

I know they will swallow this because I have worked with Bushbots who regurgitate the talking points with ease, no matter how hypocritical.

[Just Me]

42. This is intentional obfuscation of the issue re government propaganda.

In my view, the WSJ should reassess its own ethical policies with respect to whether or not it is responsible journalism to intentionally confuse issues thereby diverting from illegal activity by the government which severely undermines the rights/liberty/benefits of the American people and the operation of democracy.

Of course, WSJ is pro-corporatist, anti-american and anti-democracy. So, it projects its own unethical conduct upon others.

[Straight Shooter]

46. Can you reframe that in a sound bite that bushies will understand?

Too many polysyllabic words :D

[Just Me]

48. *smile* "Creating a diversion to escape responsibility." n/t

[OldVlad]

54. Yeah but it still looks like pay-for-publicity

dean was not spending taxpayer money!!!!!!!! that is the crux.

I don't know, my problem with Armstrong wasn't taxpayer money, it was that he was a paid mouthpiece for a politician, impersonating a pundit, and one who needs all the people talking FOR him that he can get. This thing with Dean I wish he hadn't spent because it looks like he was ginning up support on the "internet" that was hollow, even though it wasn't. Then they'll say "look how he did in Iowa, it was all fake" and it looks like a cause and effect. Its 2+2=22 but they'll make the case on cable tv. This will be the right wing spin on it, and it diminishes Dean just before he were to get to be the head of the DNC. Course in that case there is the chance that this was leaked to the GOoPers by a Dem who also wanted to head the DNC. The timing on this is suspicious.

[Just Me]

66. Are there ANY candidates who DONT pay for publicity?

No. Not.

The problem with the Armstrong deal has more to do with government-sponsored covert propaganda (which is totally unacceptable) than it does paid publicity by private citizens. Dean was NOT an agent of the government when he was promoting his campaign.

I view this bullshit as simply a diversion from the fundamental issue: government-sponsored propaganda (a form of psy-ops against the citizens of this country) is a corrupt and evil action in a country that is supposedly a democracy.

[OldVlad]

71. There are? name another

Seriously, this whole Pundit-For-Hire is a brand new phenomenon, unless I am mistaken. Can you think of anyone else who has ever had someone in the press/pundit class as a paid consultant? I for one cannot think of anyone. I suspect you are right, that Dean and Bu$h aren't alone though.

[Just Me]

74. I named NONE,...neither did you. What game are you playing here?n/t

[OldVlad]

77. uh that was my point

Reread what I posted. My point is that I can't think of anyone else besides these bloggers and Williams because this is a new and I think ugly way of promoting yourself, especially for the media. If pundits are being paid it throws the whole thing into question. I was asking you to name someone else who its come out had paid media talking heads as consultants if I had missed it, otherwise this has the appearance of a new low.

[Robbien]

93. You are doing a great job at diverting the Williams payola scam

Exactly what the WH talking point memo told everyone to do today.

Keep it up. You do the cause good.

Just keep on saying "oh gee wiz, the liberals are not lily white. Don't talk bad about the Bush Regime because they will say bad stuff about "us" liberals."

[OldVlad]

135. don't attack me because you couldn't answer the question

Exactly what the WH talking point memo told everyone to do today.

Sorry, I avoid those sorts of things, how did you get a copy again?

Just keep on saying "oh gee wiz, the liberals are not lily white. Don't talk bad about the Bush Regime because they will say bad stuff about "us" liberals."

When did I say this was a liberal/conserv issue, binary thinker? I'm sure people will feel uncomfortable hearing that talking-heads from either side are getting $ to parrot a viewpoint. It should make them question even what they hear in the media, even from their own side, and that ain't necessarily such a bad thing.

What Bush did was worse, I doubt anybody would question that other then the RW crowd, but my point (before you went all emotional because you couldn't give me other examples) was that this pay-for-media thing sounds like a new precident. Now I think you are due for another off topic tangent so be my guest--

[Just Me]

151. Your question IS diversion from gvt-sponsored propaganda.

Your every post has been a diversion from the real underlying issue pertaining to this administration's ABUSE of its power via both overt and covert, misleading/inaccurate/false propaganda.

Why are you doing that? :shrug:

I won't speculate or accuse you of anything other than the diversionary posts. Why are you diverting attention away from the underlying issue pertaining to the neoCONimperialist administration?

[Just Me]

75. The underlying issue is government-sponsored propaganda,...

,...not campaign finance.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

153. The timing benefits the White House fascists. But the principle of

objectivity free from the profit-motive must be the yardstick of credibility in a culture of ubiquitous corruption called fascism.

Yup. The CIA, BFEE, and the Dominionists will try to kill the messenger to kill the messages the internet delivers to the curious.

The internet is the new frontline of the info-wars and we better deal with that at the same time that we embrace it as the last drums of the resistance the plantation-owners want to discredit as they lose credibility with the town folk turning to other sources.

Compared to the corporate propaganda mainstream media, bloggers are pure as the driven snow. But blanket claims of purity and innocence for an entire medium are just as dangerously discrediting in the public's eyes. We mustn't mimic Bush*s unwillingness to admit mistakes out of fear of getting 'Rathered.'

In absolute terms, there are disinfo sites equivalent to Faux News and even disruptors and false-flag posts planted at this site in an effort to discredit DU.

We used to bridle at any criticism of Dems since the neo-con Repubs were so very much worse in absolute terms. But we're learning that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend and can lead to taking in Trojan Horses like the DLC and its candidates.

(I recently got taken in by a holocaust-denial site masquerading as a legit news site because I didn't look past the 'ok' front page with articles by Robert Fisk and John Pilger.
DOH! I got a reminder to look much more closely at a site before recommending it to others.)

This ain't WH talking points like that anti-evolution 'warning label' in Georgia text books which was cloaked as 'critical thinking.'

It is a way of thinking critically that might save our lives in the long run even though it makes us feel vulnerable in the short term.

[Just Me]

174. Critical thinking dictates that "motive" is derived only from ACTIONS.

The ACTIONS of this neoCONimperialist regime SPEAK a "motive" to deceive in order to benefit themselves.

Meanwhile, you are distracted and imposing the same kind of black/white bullshit that WSJ and all their following is counting on,...your "push-button" loyalty to principles.

They are USING your own personal tunnel against you and me in order to manipulate us.

Doesn't that FEEL just great,...being manipulated by the RATS, again?

Get focused. We are NOT the "bad guys". THEY ARE!!!!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

176. "your own personal tunnel against you and me in order to manipulate us"

I do get that. Actually, I agree.

There is an LATimes article about people stopping use of the internet due to viruses and other terrible threats to civilisation. The story and others is obviously part of a concerted propaganda effort to discredit the internet's threat to fascism.

The point I was trying make that we screwed ourselves for years by not recognizing the DLC infil-traitors and we get psy-ops moves against us even here at DU.

Just a heads up, not a word fetish distraction. OK?

[Just Me]

178. This is about a "governance" manipulating and USING our people.

What is happening is NOT about "screwing ourselves for years" or threats to the internet or anything PERSONAL to you.

This period in our lives involves something greater than your life or mine.

We are in a battle with those who would define the human race as a greed-laden, all-consuming rat race (something far more destructive than rats surviving in their natural habitat). We are actually in a war to prevent humanity from becoming a disease against life.

*sigh*

It'll all work out.

Keeping FOCUS is powerful.

Just, please, don't lose focus on the "greed-laden, all-consuming, rat race" assholes who will do anything to kill the best of us while enjoying themselves.

[Robbien]

104. Novak's funding is very shady

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 Novak's subscription newsletter ($297 a year).

[Just Me]

125. I'm wondering about those "America for Progress" ads on Soc.Sec.

I've seen a lot of those ads advocating Bush & the neoCONimperialists' desire to "fix" social security.

Do you suppose any taxpayer funding is being funnelled to that propaganda campaign?

I do wonder.

[Robbien]

127. I wondered also so I looked up America for Progress funding

The mosting interesting part of it is that America for Progress spent $35 million in 2004 and $27 million of that went to the PR firm which paid the payola to Williams, Mentzer Media. Mentzer is doing the PR for the social security scam also.

America for Progress five top donors

Ameriquest Capital Corp. $5,000,000
A.G. Spanos Construction Co. $5,000,000
Alticor Inc./Amway/DeVos Family Interests $4,000,000
Jerry Perenchio/Chartwell Partners Inc. $4,000,000
Perry Homes $3,000,000


Note that Perry Homes is the Perry who gave the seed money to the Smear Boat Liars.

[Just Me]

130. Wow!!! Thanks!!!

:yourock:

This is why I love DU. Issues are clarified. Information (facts) are revealed. Truth prevails.

[OldVlad]

138. You're right, I forgot about old gravel voice

Yes, Novak never did say his son worked for that company that I heard, that's almost as bad as what Williams did.

[Capn Sunshine]

110. The timing IS suspicious

So is the continued posting of ANYTHING anti-Dean on a "Democratic" website. DFA paid these guys to assist in linking and creating blog friendly contenet, and they both were paid around $3,000 bucks a month for four months. Markos put his disclaimer prominently at the top of his blog that he was a "paid consultant for the Dean campaign" Jerome stopped his blog completely.

Is this Aplles and oranges or is this walnuts and celery?

[OldVlad]

137. I agree

So is the continued posting of ANYTHING anti-Dean on a "Democratic" website.

There does seem to be a group out there (and here) who wants to sabotage Dean within the party. I don't know who they are and what they hope to gain, but I am suspicious as well why this is coming about so many months after his campaign ended.

[Just Me]

152. Why do you divert from the neoCONimperialist's propaganda?

Why are you ignoring the egregiousness of an administration that is demonstrating a pattern of deception against the American people?

Is the administration's chronic abuse of power of no importance to you?

[OldVlad]

194. Why do you insist on writing my posts for me

Why are you ignoring the egregiousness of an administration that is demonstrating a pattern of deception against the American people?

Because I do that every day, there are other things to talk about now and again, and I get frustrated dwelling on things beyond my control.

Is the administration's chronic abuse of power of no importance to you?

Nice strawman.

My theory is that while Bu$h is our enemy, we are not united, and there have been many at the DNC that are just as big of an enemy of Dean as Rove. The odd timing of this non story that only hurts Dean smells of another example of that, I think its fair to postulate that this came from another quarter then Bushco. You are welcome to disagree, and I wish they were united because then we'd have hope, but its a gut feeling I have.

[LynnTheDem]

121. The bloggers gave FULL DISCLOSURE. Armstrong DID NOT.

It's comparing apples with sponges.

[calimary]

150. Another excellent point. Didn't the Daily Kos's Zuniga post that

involvement up at the top of the blog?

[Kber]

55. Very good points you make

1. Did not use tax payer money
2. Was disclosed in several publications AT THE TIME.

Keep repeating!!

In the interest of full disclosure myself, I'm not a Dean fan. But he CLEARLY did nothing wrong here.

[brooklynite]

107. To be more precise...

Because sending a little money to bloggers is exactly the same thing, right?

Stupid as it probably was, at least Dean used his own (donated) money, rather than ours...

[Orsino]

161. They're right.

Until our so-called "representatives" have the courage to make this crap illegal, and to enforce such statutes, it will continue to happen.

Whatever shame the Rs might have felt is gone now. By helping to blur the lines between right and wrong (to what I assume is a smaller degree) Dean has given them permission to continue the same ol' same ol'.

I wonder how much truth is in the story.

[hector459]

2. So what? He was running for office and is entitled to spend on PR any way

his campaign wanted to legally. Dean should step up rightaway and put this to rest. How many bloggers and swiftboaters did the Bush regime use this past election?

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

4. and don't forget "real" journalists!

[No Exit]

8. That swiftboat crap reeked of bought-and-paid-for

from Day One. The only people too stupid to see that are people who are stupid enough to vote for Bush in the first place.

[alfredo]

94. The swifties got government contracts and Jobs with

the VA.

the Bloggers got paid to advise Dean on the internet.

[No Exit]

183. IOW, the swiftboat vets were paid with our $, bloggers pd. with Dean's $?

[alfredo]

188. And the bloggers dislosed their positions, at least that's what

I was told.

[peekaloo]

14. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

WSJ seems not to know the difference between campaign contributions and taxpayers money. What a shock! :eyes:

[Norquist Nemesis]

32. Bingo! Campaign funds are not the same as US tax $$$

promoting an agenda.

[hippiechick]

37. Yeah, wouldn't it be considered 'advertising' ?

Seriously, wouldn't it ?

:shrug:

[Cocoa]

73. not if you're running as some "new" kind of politician

for me, one of my biggest turnoffs about Dean was Joe Trippi.

This blog thing totally stinks, and before that was the disgusting episode where Trippi orchestrated an incident in order to portray the Gephardt campaign as homophobic.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[RetroLounge]

88. This thread isn't about Trippi

and no one asked you about your Dean turnoffs.

so go bash Dean elsewhere.

It was NOT taxpayer's money.

It was publicly disclosed AT THE TIME.

So do you have anything to add on the topic?

RL

[Cocoa]

98. the public disclosure makes a big difference

thanks for making that point, the yelling crap was not necessary and is counterproductive.

If it was publicly disclosed, then I think there's not much of an issue and I wonder what the point of this story is, and I suspect it is in fact about Dean's run for the DNC chair.

[RetroLounge]

109. Sorry for yelling...

:hi:

RL

[No Exit]

3. Welcome to today's repuke talking points...

sure, they can go ahead and point fingers at Daily Kos, which, according to the article, DISCLOSED the relationship.

How's about we INQUIRE INTO FREEREPUBLIC'S STATUS ON THIS ISSUE??

I think that would be a very fruitful area of inquiry.

[WildClarySage]

5. "the consultants was noted in several publications at the time."

In that case, isn't this just a little different?

ed to add... this was Dean's money, not taxpayer's.

[berni_mccoy]

6. Dean using campaing funds...

to pay for political punditry and Bush using TAX PAYER $ are two completely different things.

Bush engaged in criminal activity. Dean engaged in political advertising. There's a huge difference.

[Poppyseedman]

60. Bush engaged in criminal activity

I certainly don't agree with what the Dept. of Education did with Armstrong Williams, but I fail to see where this is a "criminal activity" on the part of the Bush administration. Certainly, it borders on unethical, but criminal?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

First Bush, now Dean: I wonder how much of this goes on under the radar.

[berni_mccoy]

65. It is illegal according to the Senate appropriations committee

Here's a story about it: http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050114invest.php

Not only that, but why wouldn't they use the money FOR NCLB instead of promoting it? Because NCLB is a miserable failure and instead of spending OUR taxpayer $ on education, they are spending it on corrupt republican pundits.

Is that illegal enough for you?

[Poppyseedman]

100. I find the what the DOE did reprehensible.

But, since when is the Dept of Education pushing propaganda. Do you consider NCLB propaganda? I don't think any federal judge will.

Leaders of a Senate committee have asked the Education Department to turn over records of recent years’ public relations contracts, while reminding the education secretary of a federal ban on “propaganda.”

You stated it was illegal.

[Just Me]

106. See 117 Stat. 11, 470. Also, study "high crimes and misdemeanors".

What the Bush administration has been doing does NOT, NOT, NOT fall within the purview of "political payments to commentators" as the WSJ falsely reports!!!

Government-sponsored covert propaganda IS ILLEGAL.

A pattern of deceptive government-sponsored propaganda falls within the class of conduct which should constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" because it is a horrific abuse of power.

[Just Me]

69. Perpetrating fraud against the American people is an abuse of power

and certainly illegal. A pattern of deceitful, government-sponsored propaganda (whether overt or covert) in order to convince the American people to give up liberties and benefits they would NOT have otherwise sacrificed but for the deception constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors".

It is a freakin' outrage that any government would engage in such actions. It is particularly loathesome and anti-American and anti-democracy in this country!!!

If any private citizen engaged in a scheme to fool tens of thousands or millions of people in order to get them to give up liberties/benefits/money,...they'd be tossed in jail for a very long time!!!

[Poppyseedman]

108. First of all, your definition

of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and "abuse of powers" doesn't fit within the constitutional parameters.

Just how is NCLB "convincing the American people to give up liberties and benefits they would NOT have otherwise sacrificed but for the deception"

I'm not defending Bush at all, but after this is all said and done, maybe we might wish we were not so high and mighty about being outraged.

I have a bad feeling this will come to bite us in the ass.

Who knows what other monies are trading hands or agenda being paid for?

The CBS story has some very bad possibilities for the Democratic party

Tim Russet almost spilled his guts with some dirt on Imus.

The MSM will love to dig up like wise dirt on the Democratic party and it operations.

[Just Me]

119. My definition most certainly does fall within "constitutional parameters".

All I can recommend to you is to read the playbook which ultra right-wingers used against Clinton, "Impeachment: A Handbook" by Yale law professor Charles L. Black Jr.

The actions by this administration are far FAR more egregious than anything Clinton did.

My characterization of this administrations' actions fall squarely within the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which are, of course, set forth in Article II, Section 4 of our Constitution.

[Laurab]

102. Yes I believe it is illegal for taxpayer's money to be used

by the government to spread PROPAGANDA. At least it used to be, when this was a democracy. It doesn't "border" on unethical, it IS unethical, and it is criminal as well.











edited for typo.

[LynnTheDem]

122. "first bush, now Dean" MY ASS

bush used TAXPAYER FUNDS to pay a JOURNALIST to push his policies with NO DISCLOSURE.

Dean used CAMPAIGN DONATIONS to pay BLOGGERS to push his campaign WITH FULL DISCLOSURE.

And ANYONE who compares Dean to bush as one & the same action is just showing us EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE.

[sunnystarr]

181. Ok I'll correct you cause you are wrong ...

Sec. 1913. Lobbying with appropriated moneys

No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress
shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used
directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service,
advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written
matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any
manner a Member of Congress, to favor or oppose, by vote or
otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress, whether
before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution
proposing such legislation or appropriation; but this shall not
prevent officers or employees of the United States or of its
departments or agencies from communicating to Members of Congress
on the request of any Member or to Congress, through the proper
official channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which
they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public
business.
Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of
any department or agency thereof, violates or attempts to violate
this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both; and after notice and hearing by the
superior officer vested with the power of removing him, shall be
removed from office or employment.
Source
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 792; Sept. 13, 1994, Pub. L.
103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(G), 108 Stat. 2147.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., Sec. 201 (July 11, 1919, ch.
6, Sec. 6, 41 Stat. 68).
Reference to ''department'' and ''agency'' was added in three
instances after the words ''United States'' to remove doubt as to
the scope of the section. (See definitions of ''department'' and
''agency'' in section 6 of this title.)
Reference to the offense as a misdemeanor was omitted as
unnecessary in view of the definitive section 1 of this title.
Words ''on conviction thereof'' were omitted as surplusage since
punishment can be imposed only after conviction.
Minor changes were made in phraseology.
AMENDMENTS
1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted ''fined under this title'' for
''fined not more than $500'' in last par.

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in title 5 section 3374.

http://www.washingtonwatchdog.org/documents/usc/ttl18/ptI/ch93/sec1913.html

Bush was breaking the law but of course he'll never admit to having ordered it and put it on the DOE. He's already gotten away with it in the past:

On Friday, 7 January 2005, John Files for the New York Times reported that <1> (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0107-07.htm)

The Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said on Thursday that the Bush administration violated federal law by producing and distributing television news segments about the effects of drug use among young people.

The accountability office said the videos "constitute covert propaganda" because the government was not identified as the source of the materials, which were distributed by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. They were broadcast by nearly 300 television stations and reached 22 million households, the office said.

The accountability office does not have law enforcement powers, but its decisions on federal spending are usually considered authoritative.

In May the office found that the Bush administration had violated the same law by producing television news segments that portrayed the new Medicare law as a boon to the elderly.

The accountability office said the administration's misuse of federal money "also constitutes a violation of the Antideficiency Act," which prohibits spending in excess of appropriations.


Let's see if he gets away with it again. Why aren't we using these things to discredit this administration??

As far as Dean goes, it's not even a close comparison. How about when Bush pushed his political agenda on the IRS website? There wasn't any disclosure either. Dean was brought up to again discredit him since Bushco obviously doesn't want him in any position -- the best case to back him imho. This also keeps all the pundits and radio whore's on the Dean attack and divert all the negative publicity about Armstrong Williams and the DOE.

[sunnystarr]

182. Found a better, clearer source....

http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/command_counsel/resources/documents/newsletter97-6/encl18.pdf

Read Section E on Page 3.

[Just Me]

186. Please stop complicating the FACT that "the people" are being screwed.

Please,...stop rationalizing (and calling it "intellectual") a diversion from the facts.

It's too self-serving, whether voluntarily or via FAT compensation.

STOP DEMEANING HUMANITY BY SERVING GREED.

If you still have an empathic or compassionate bone in your body,...you will CHOOSE to stop this greedy bullshit.

[sunnystarr]

193. Not understanding your plea in relation to posting the law that

was broken in response to a poster who wasn't aware that any law was broken. Your response is bewildering.

[Ripley]

7. Is this an attempt to Bash Dean all over again?

snip>>

Mr. Zuniga said they were paid $3,000 a month for four months and he noted that he had posted a disclosure near the top of his daily blog that he worked for the Dean campaign doing "technical consulting." Mr. Armstrong said he shut down his site when he went to work for the campaign, then resumed posting after his contract ended.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Dean said the two bloggers hired by the campaign did nothing unethical because both disclosed their connection to the Dean operation.

snip>>

If readers of these blogs knew that he was being paid by Dean, why does it compare with Armstrong's unethical practice. Did Amrstrong Williams tell CNN, or anywhere else he pushed NCLB that he was being paid by Bush?

[peekaloo]

11. seems that way, doesn't it?

I'm liking Dean more and more these days. He seems to strike fear in those with blackened, shriveled hearts.

[RetroLounge]

89. Including some here on DU, obviously.

RL

[Maat]

21. Exactly.

n/t

[July]

61. Note: DISCLOSURE is one big difference between these 2 cases.

Armstrong used his position and reputation to imply his support was independent, and to talk up the propaganda on other people's programs.

[AZCat]

9. Here's a link to Kos' response...

Kos blogged about this yesterday and makes the point that "Zephyr's efforts to score points for her pet cause has given Kos-obsessed wingnut bloggers an excuse to blur the Armstrong Williams issue."

He also draws a distinction between his case an that of Armstrong here:
"WilliamsGate is fucked up because 1) he took taxpayer money (it's your money, as Republicans like to say), and 2) he didn't disclose the payments. So how that can relate to the fact that 1) we didn't take taxpayer money, and 2) it was all disclosed, is beyond me."


Whether or not you agree with Markos' actions, I think it is wrong to have the WSJ article up without any response from him.

[Fifth of Five]

10. The difference is

taxpayer dollars were used by *'s Education Dep't. How surprising that * is yet again taking the "It was them, not me! I didn't do it!" approach. He is the most dis-engaged person I've ever seen.

[really-looney]

12. Thats what you do in a campaign

I was not a Dean supporter, but I did and still do agree with him on many issues. I was more comfortable with Senator Kerry (It may just be a Massachusetts thing). But it seems to me that one does things like that with the money they raise for their campaign to get elected. This is very different than an elected/selected official using the publics money to pad the pockets of its supporters.

[Ganja Ninja]

13. Not even close to comparable with Armstrong Williams.

This is really a vague innuendo to try and deflect criticism of Bush's paid whores. Now the RW media will echo this when ever the Williams payoff is brought up.

[wishlist]

15. But this was campaign funds not govt funded propaganda

It was predicted by several here on DU that a story would break soon about Democratic commentators being paid since the RW would love to be able to defuse the Armstrong Williams bombshell and nullify the impact by implicating Dems in payola too.

[WildClarySage]

16. Call me cynical, but I predict the fallout shit

won't be sticking to * on this one, either.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

17. Unfortunately, i have a feeling you maybe right

and by this afternoon it will be, "Dean paid Armstrong Williams..."

[Ripley]

18. Actually last night PBS' Newshour starting in on it...

I only caught a part of a story they were doing and they brought up Jayson Blair (NYT), Some guy from USA Today (fired for make up stories) and Dan Rather and lumped them all together with Armstrong Williams.

I thought oh boy I see where this is headed. Republican caught doing something illegal or unethical...QUICK DIVERSION TO LIBERALS. In this case let's hang the liberal media! Like you can make any comparison between them.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

20. wow....when did Newshour get eaten up by the mspm?

mspm = main stream propaganda machine

[tinanator]

23. You must have missed that meeting

I only wish I could spit out the Blue Pill or whatever it was that opened my eyes to domestic ops in the media, going back to CIA working through Scripps-Howard when it used to be illegal and stickier. Now those days are laughable compared to the thorough insertion of assets into the media. Ask Bernstein or see his famous Rolling Stone article. NPR and PBS are the upper echelon of government controlled information warfare. Please, if you are thinking PBS will take care of your need for honest information, think again (or for once)...

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

34. Well I aways knew that PBS was never really "independent"

and that it is ultimatly funded by the CIA and the same people who run all the good stuff

and if you belive the above, we really have no free press period.

I just always thought Jim Lehr had some balls to try and speak some truth....guess I was wrong.

and I like to believe I think all the time

[Just Me]

47. Great chart. Thanks.

Of course, it costs money to run any press. So, economically speaking, I guess, there is no "free press".

But, don't you think that the term "free press" relates to accurate, rational and truthful reporting free of manipulation by the government? That's what I always thought "free press" meant. :shrug:

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

53. Your definition of free press is how i understand it

but money corrupts. If the government is funding the press, why would the press bite that hand that feeds it? and if it is the CIA funding the press, why should the press every truthfully be open in exploring what the government does behind the scenes?

Money or donations stop accurate rational and truthful reporting, allowing propaganda and manipulation to be continually spread...

[tinanator]

166. donations free the remaining free press

strings attached grants and insertion of assets destroy it

[tinanator]

165. I think

Jim Lehrer is a dirtbag with more concern for his model railroad than democracy or fellow citizens. McNeill had the integrity they couldnt keep. That chart is a little loaded, no emphasis on VOA, and no mention of NRO. CIA is a red herring most of the time.

[Just Me]

175. *LOL* I will certainly agree that the chart is LOADED.

However, I can definitely distinguish those who seek to "serve" and/or advance "the people" (who are supposed to be the core of POWER in this country called "democracy" and whose interests are supposed to be SERVED by their governance) from those who obviously USE AND ABUSE "the people", as if "the people" are supposed to be SERVING them.

[tinanator]

195. sorry about that stupid comment

or for once. what jerk wrote that? musta been sober. sorry.

[BlueManDude]

19. private campaign funds versus Taxpayer Money n/t

[flobee1kenobi]

28. 2 glaring diffrences

1- The Dean campaign did not break ****FCC**** regulations!
2- The Dean campaign did not use ***TAXPAYER*** money!

He used the money the way it was intended to be used!
The money isnt the issue-the issue is that Williams BROKE THE LAW!

[July]

63. Whom did Bush's campaign fund? nt

[BlueManDude]

185. The WH gave taxpayer $$$ to a partisan hack

to shill for them.

[sickinohio]

22. I just sent the idiot that wrote this in the WSJ this email

I think we should all send the idiot an email:

Now tell me, how does Dean paying a couple of bloggers from campaign contributions to promote his campaign compare to Armstrong being paid by the pResident with tax payer money to promote an unfunded No Child Left Behind act? Huge difference here, don't you think? The bloggers web page stated they were paid by the Dean Camp. Get off the distorted facts and tell the truth for a change. You're probably paid by Bu$hCo too. On second thought, not probably paid by, I'm sure you are. All of the Media is. You are all unethical.

[go west young man]

26. I'm thinking they threw this pathetic stuff out there...

not only to deflect from Bush but also to attempt to weaken Dean in his bid for DNC chair. They're afraid of him. They may want him to get in thier face about it and thereby make him look like a hothead to our DNC chair electors. The WSJ is a rag.

[sickinohio]

35. how right you are

[Lizzie Borden]

147. Bingo! I think you are correct!

n/t

[The White Tree]

25. And the RNC set up book signings for Zell Miller

during their convention, right after his speech.

<http://www.talkleft.com/new_archives/007759.html>

RNC: Daytime Appearances
If anyone's looking for Zell Miller today to let him know what you think of his speech, he'll be signing books at the Hilton. (1335 Avenue of the Americas, 11 a.m. - 1 p.m.)

My understanding at the time was that each book cost $25 and you had to buy one to meet the senator.

What's the difference? Zell Miller got far more air time.

[WilliamPitt]

29. It wasn't taxpayer money

Hello? Big difference.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

30. you forgot

we live in an Orwell novel.

[AP]

81. That's not the difference that the FCC cares about.

The FCC cares that people giving opinions on TV divulge financial interests in the products their pushing.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

33. This is making me

:puke:

Orwell would be proud

This is like comparing apples and oranges...

[Larkspur]

38. And note that unlike Bush's minion, Dean's bloggers...

who didn't have the same ethic rules governing them as reporters do, did disclose their connection to the Dean campaign.

<SNIP>
The two men, who jointly operated a small political consulting firm, said they didn't believe the Dean campaign had been trying to buy their influence. Both men noted that they had promoted Mr. Dean's campaign long before they were hired and continued to do so after their contract with the campaign ended.

Mr. Zuniga said they were paid $3,000 a month for four months and he noted that he had posted a disclosure near the top of his daily blog that he worked for the Dean campaign doing "technical consulting." Mr. Armstrong said he shut down his site when he went to work for the campaign, then resumed posting after his contract ended.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Dean said the two bloggers hired by the campaign did nothing unethical because both disclosed their connection to the Dean operation.
<SNIP>

[jmcgowanjm]

49. He is the Hardest Working Man in Ho' Business.”

All the President's Newsmen

What if you're getting paid by both the CIA and
the WH.

Operation Mockingbird

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/arts/16rich.html

[Kitsune]

39. And that's the last we've heard of Armstrong Williams.

[Rose Siding]

40. This is the kind of messing with Dean that raked in donations

It. Was. Disclosed.

That has NOTHING to do with secretly using govt funds to manipulate the public.

Put up a bat. Ka-ching!

[SideshowScott]

41. So? watch the whore cable news act like this is a big deal

when they downplay the armstrong scandal and the no WMD's..I tell you our press as betrayed us.
( Note: This does not include the poeple who are working for the press still fighting the good fight..I salute you in a tough time to find out the true facts)

[NoStinkinBadges]

43. So What?

[Blue_Tires]

44. leave it to the WSJ to carry water for the admin again

[ucmike]

45. although its not the same as the williams issue

ie: taxpayer vs campaign money, it still bothers me a little. bloggers are not "the press", but a paid opinion made available to the public is somewhat shady to me, especially considering the debate generated by many blogs.

[Just Me]

50. Government-sponsored covert propaganda is far more loathesome!!!

Craftily imposing a form of psy-ops upon unsuspecting American citizens is absolutely disgusting and has NO place in a so-called "democracy". If anything, it is an anti-democracy and anti-American tactic.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

51. shady to you?

i think its perfectly acceptable.

i also think the bloggers are "the press".

i also think that general electric does this a billion times over. so if we want to talk about "shady" we should have an honest dialogue about this without using terms like "shady".

im sorry, we disagree. i see something "shady" about the MSM's constant Dean smears.

[Rose Siding]

52. The association was clearly posted

And kos reiterated the connection repeatedly. The other blogger didn't even blog while he was paid, as well as disclosing.

And anyway, if you don't like paid opinions, put down the paper and cut off the tube...

snip>
One example of speaking opportunities: (I don't know anything about this foundation and can't find anything...) http://www.newingtoncropsey.com/Events/past.htm
Past speakers at Newington Cropsey Foundation, NY:
· Howard Fineman
· John Kasich
· Kenneth Allard (military analyst with MSNBC and NBC News, as well as a regular columnist for MSNBC.com)
· Oliver North
· Alan Keyes
· Sean Hannity
· Cal Thomas
· Richard Picciotto (9/11 Fireman)
· Ruth Graham-McIntyre (Daughter of Billy Graham)

Current speaking fee listings:

The major journalists set the tone for "conventional wisdom."

Brit Hume $30K-50K
http://www.speaking.com/speakers/brithume.html

Andrea Mitchell $20k - 25K
http://www.speaking.com/speakers/andreamitchell.html

Lisa Meyers $10K - 15K
http://www.speaking.com/speakers/lisamyers.html

Lawrence Kudlow $15,001 - $25,000
CNBC, contributing editor and columnist for National Review
Mercatus Center: http://www.mercatus.org/people.php/959.html?menuid=1
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=2234&CFID=2388892&CFTOKEN=4 1108284

Fred Barnes Speaking fees: $7,501 - $10,000
Weekly Standard, Board of Scaife/Bradley/Coors-funded Institute Religion and Democracy http://www.ird-renew.org/News/News.cfm?ID=597&c=3 Funding: http://mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any_recipient.php?recipientID=174
Speaking bio at: http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=570&CFID=2388892&CFTOKEN=41 108284

Kate O'Beirne Speaking fees: $5,000 (if local) to $20,000
CNN Capital Gang, Washington editor of the National Review
Note - Former vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation
http://www.leadingauthorities.com/3727/O

Tucker Carlson $10,001 - $15,000
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=3081&CFID=2388892&CFTOKEN=4 1108284

Robert Novak Fee - on request
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=557&CFID=2388892&CFTOKEN=41 108284

Lou Dobbs Fee - on request
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=83&CFID=2388892&CFTOKEN=411 08284

Sean Hannity
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=3168&CFID=2388892&CFTOKEN=4 1108284

John Stossel Fee range: $30K - $50K
http://www.speaking.com/speakers/johnstossel.html

Laura Ingraham $15,001 - $25,000
Radio show, Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC, Columns in newspapers including Washington Post, USA Today, and the New York Sun
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=2244&CFID=2388892&CFTOKEN=4 1108284

Tim Russert Fee - on request
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?SpeakerId=824&CFID=2388892&CFTOKEN=41 108284

Howard Fineman, Fee - on request
http://www.kepplerassociates.com/speakers/finemanhoward.asp

Enron, Buckraking, Punditgate

In 2002 it was disclosed that Enron had been paying journalists and commentators. This is only one corporation. How much of this s going on? How to find out?

Articles:
http://www.headlinemuse.com/Politics/moneyreporters.htm
Money, Power and Influence: Muckrakers Become Buckrakers by Richard Blow
Same article at http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/12360/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58606-2002Jan29?language=printer
. . . And the Enron Pundits

MORE........
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/12/143558/031#readmore

[msmcghee]

64. Payola is payola . . .

. . even when Dems do it. A notice by Kos at the top of the page that he does "technical consulting for the Dean campaign" is not a disclosure.

"Don't believe anything I say about the Dems running for the nomination because I recieve $3000/month from Dean's campaign so I won't switch my support to any other candidate."

Now that's a disclosure - one that was not made. Kos is off my daily must-read list.

"I supported Dean before I got the payments and after I got the payments" sounds like Armstrong to me.

Who paid the money is a separate issue entirely. Taxpayers should not fund PR campaigns - period - but seprate issue.

. . . ucmike - I agree with you and welcome to DU

[Rose Siding]

72. When you click the disclosure link, a new page opens!

Full Disclosure
I've been on the road a lot the past few months. Some of it was for my day job as a web developer. But the bulk of it was for my new political consulting firm (alongside my partner).

I spent this weekend in Burlington, VT, where we officially accepted work on behalf of presidential candidate Howard Dean. Dean joins a Senate candidate in our still small but hopefully growing roster of clients.

Of course, this means many of you will accuse of me of certain biases (with good reason).

That's fine. I never claimed to be free of bias. But I've always been able to see past such biases to do what I love to do -- analyze the political landscape. For example, I'm biased against Gephardt, yet have had no problem slapping him in first for the Cattle Call. My approach to writing will remain unchanged. I won't turn this into a rah-rah for Dean site. That's just not my style.

Ultimately, I trust you all to take what I write with the proper grain of salt, fully appraised of whatever conflicts of interest I may have.

But for the record, I will not discuss my role within the Dean campaign, other than to say it's technical, not message or strategy. I will also not discuss any of my other clients, including their identities (I have non-disclose agreements to which I must adhere).

Some of you may be upset, but there's nothing I can do about it. I have to make my living, and if I can do so helping Democrats win elections, I can't imagine anything more exciting and fulfilling.

Some of you Deanies may take this as an opportunity to gloat. Don't. It's not like I'm some big catch or anything. As some unnamed rival campaign noted in the New Republic, I'm just one of many "obscure bloggers". I'm cool with that. It's an accurate observation.

More importantly, I respect the entire Democratic Party field of candidates, and I think all of them would be an improvement over King George. Even Lieberman. I'll work my ass off to help our eventual nominee get elected President of the United States.

But there's only one campaign that plays the game in my world -- the virtual world -- and was a natural fit for the kinds of services I could help provide. The Dean campaign wants to prove that the Internet can and will change the way campaigns are organized and run.

I want to help prove them right.

Clarification: Before your speculations get too out of hand, let me just make clear that we are not in charge of anything over at Dean for America. We are merely technical advisors. It's really not that big of a deal. On some of the other races we are/will be working, our role will be much bigger. But Dean already has a capable web and technology team. We are just being plugged in to that already successful group of people.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030619171103/www.dailykos.com/archives/002972.html

[msmcghee]

80. That is a better disclosure, but . .

I never clicked the link because it said "technical" consulting - something I had no problem with.

On the page above - he doesn't describe what "technical" consulting means in this case, and . .

He doesn't say how much he is getting . .

I think if he wanted to do this right he would have asked for a memo from the campaign stating . .

We are paying you $3000 a month for the following services, then list them . .

. . then state that the contract is not dependent on your political support for our candidate nor on any of your political views which we understand are an independent function of your website. Or something to that effect.

I can't imagine why he did not ask for such a memo. Instead he writes a folksy "you can still trust me" explanation.

PS - I like Howard Dean. It's just that now I will never have the same trust in what I read from the Daily Kos as I did in the past.

[Rose Siding]

95. I'll grant that some are more susceptable to spin than others.

For instance, your characterization of his disclaimer as being "a folksy 'you can still trust me' explanation", doesn't impress me as much as the actual statement "I never claimed to be free of bias."

[msmcghee]

123. There's nothing wrong with bias . .

. . I am biased and I like to read opinions that are biased in a liberal direction.

A hidden agenda (like I'm being paid to have this opinion and you don't know it) is not the same thing.

Readers of blogs have a reasonable expectation that all of the writer's biases and agendas are disclosed - and that none of them are motivated by payments.

[Just Me]

78. Every candidate pays for publicity. The issue is really about propaganda.

This article is simply a diversion/distraction from the issue of government-sponsored propaganda which is completely distinct from campaign finance. EVERY candidate pays for publicity!!

What this article is clouding over and kinda' covering up is the very serious issue of a form of fraud being perpetrated by our government against its people.

A pattern of deceitful, government-sponsored propaganda (whether overt or covert) in order to convince the American people to give up liberties and benefits they would NOT have otherwise sacrificed but for the deception constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors".

[msmcghee]

84. The problem is not with candidates paying for publicity . .

. . it is with a supposedly independent news/opinion source accepting payments from a candidate seeking publicity.

I agree with you that this is not even close to the Armstrong Williams / Dept. of Education / taxpayer funded payola. But I'm not sure if I believe this is a counter-smear to take the heat off of Williams and the Dept. of Ed. I can't imagine anyone believeing they are comparable. I don't think the people who vote for Bush think that blogs are real news / opinion sources anyway.

. . but it still is payola, or could justifiably be interpreted that way . . because Mickey Markos did not take due precautions in my opinion to protect himself from that charge.

You'd have to believe the campaign is lying now - about their claim that the $3000 was to make sure he didn't switch candidates. If they are, then he should sue them - but he left himself open to this IMO.

[Just Me]

87. WSJ is having success diverting attention away from the corruption,...

,...of the neoCONimperialists who are waging a profiteering war on behalf of corporatists against the best interests of the American people.

That's what I believe.

[Rose Siding]

103. Where did they say that?

"You'd have to believe the campaign is lying now - about their claim that the $3000 was to make sure he didn't switch candidates."

The "campaign" says:

"We were paying him in part because WE hoped that he, and Kos, would blog positive things about Dean, but that was never explicit or implicit in the contract. This has to do with OUR motives, not some contract, and no compromise on their part."

http://zonkette.blogspot.com/2005/01/clarifications-and-thoughts-on.html

[msmcghee]

124. From the WSJ article . .

. . . Ms. Teachout said the campaign never explicitly asked the bloggers to promote Mr. Dean. But she said the Dean campaign wanted to keep them from shifting to rivals.

[FightinNewDem]

105. Kos is a fraud

Even Kos' little disclosure was late in coming. It wasn't until someone smoked him out that he admitted to consulting on the Dean campaign.

[KoKo]

115. Why did he need to disclose it at all. This is the Internet. We can

decide for ourselves whether what we read seems like propaganda for one side or the other..

However, the Main Stream Airwaves are owned by all of us. The FTC/Government are supposed to be regulating.

With the demise of the "Fairness Doctrine" and "Media De-Regulation" we now have Propaganda paid for with our tax dollars coming into our homes.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LynnTheDem]

129. Jebus fucking cripes.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/15/BAGR14A8Q71.DTL

ONE YEAR AGO.

YES it was KNOWN that Markos was a Dean consultant. He is also a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, NOT a journalist, Dean was NOT the United States Government, and he DID NOT use taxpayer funds, and ANYONE that can't see the HUGE DIFFERENCE is either a bush apologist or an IDIOT.

[RetroLounge]

92. Show me Shady in here

The two men, who jointly operated a small political consulting firm, said they didn't believe the Dean campaign had been trying to buy their influence. Both men noted that they had promoted Mr. Dean's campaign long before they were hired and continued to do so after their contract with the campaign ended.

Mr. Zuniga said they were paid $3,000 a month for four months and he noted that he had posted a disclosure near the top of his daily blog that he worked for the Dean campaign doing "technical consulting." Mr. Armstrong said he shut down his site when he went to work for the campaign, then resumed posting after his contract ended.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Dean said the two bloggers hired by the campaign did nothing unethical because both disclosed their connection to the Dean operation.

RL

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

56. I think it's a fair criticism...

The fact is that many of us receive news and opinions from the internet. It's important to know that any blog that promotes itself as unbiased and independent should be just that. If a candidate is paying you to write something, it should be publicly acknowledged.

[RetroLounge]

96. Well, if you can't even read the posts in this thread

Which say that IT WAS DISCLOSED then what good is the disclosure?

:eyes:

RL

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

99. They claim they disclosed it...

How did they make their disclosure? How would any Blog do it?

[Rose Siding]

148. How's this? High on the left of the page...

http://web.archive.org/web/20030623112413/http://www.dailykos.com/

if you click: "Disclaimer" (which preceeds "I do some technical work for Howard Dean") a whole page comes up...

Monday | June 09, 2003

Full Disclosure
I've been on the road a lot the past few months. Some of it was for my day job as a web developer. But the bulk of it was for my new political consulting firm (alongside my partner).

I spent this weekend in Burlington, VT, where we officially accepted work on behalf of presidential candidate Howard Dean. Dean joins a Senate candidate in our still small but hopefully growing roster of clients.

Of course, this means many of you will accuse of me of certain biases (with good reason).

That's fine. I never claimed to be free of bias. But I've always been able to see past such biases to do what I love to do -- analyze the political landscape. For example, I'm biased against Gephardt, yet have had no problem slapping him in first for the Cattle Call. My approach to writing will remain unchanged. I won't turn this into a rah-rah for Dean site. That's just not my style.

Ultimately, I trust you all to take what I write with the proper grain of salt, fully appraised of whatever conflicts of interest I may have.

But for the record, I will not discuss my role within the Dean campaign, other than to say it's technical, not message or strategy. I will also not discuss any of my other clients, including their identities (I have non-disclose agreements to which I must adhere).

Some of you may be upset, but there's nothing I can do about it. I have to make my living, and if I can do so helping Democrats win elections, I can't imagine anything more exciting and fulfilling.

Some of you Deanies may take this as an opportunity to gloat. Don't. It's not like I'm some big catch or anything. As some unnamed rival campaign noted in the New Republic, I'm just one of many "obscure bloggers". I'm cool with that. It's an accurate observation.

More importantly, I respect the entire Democratic Party field of candidates, and I think all of them would be an improvement over King George. Even Lieberman. I'll work my ass off to help our eventual nominee get elected President of the United States.

But there's only one campaign that plays the game in my world -- the virtual world -- and was a natural fit for the kinds of services I could help provide. The Dean campaign wants to prove that the Internet can and will change the way campaigns are organized and run.

I want to help prove them right.

Clarification: Before your speculations get too out of hand, let me just make clear that we are not in charge of anything over at Dean for America. We are merely technical advisors. It's really not that big of a deal. On some of the other races we are/will be working, our role will be much bigger. But Dean already has a capable web and technology team. We are just being plugged in to that already successful group of people.

Posted June 09, 2003 04:15 AM | Comments (144) | Trackback (4)

http://web.archive.org/web/20030619171103/www.dailykos.com/archives/002972.html

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

191. Lucky he's self-employed

Any professional news organization in Americe (OK, other than Faux News) would fire him on the spot. As I understand the situation, he was paid by the Dean Campaign to make positive statements about his candidacy.

In his "full disclosure" disclaimer, he claims to be paid for only techincal advice -- which one would certainly contrue to mean web development and such. His disclaimer is laced with just enough utter falsehood to render it pointless.

[Rose Siding]

192. You've got the story wrong

There is no falsehood. The campaign paid him for tech service. The one person who's said anything about it- Zypher Teachout, never implied the contract had anything to do with anything else -only with her (and whoever else on the web team is implied when she says "we") hopes.

kos doesn't claim to be a "professional news organization" and thinking he'd be fired for something like this would mean that there would be a few more current openings in the virtuous media that you imagine. Let's see how accurate your assertion about that is...

snip>
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0111-01.htm
Are George Will's Conflicts None of Your Business?
Jan 1 2004
Will wrote a column on Conrad Black's foreign policy views without revealing that he gets $25,000 each time he attends a meeting of Black's advisory board. When asked about this, Will replied, "My business is my business," adding, "Got it?"

http://www.salon.com/media/media961022.html
Strange bedfellows: Journalists as corporate shills
John Stossel appearance Federalist Society, "According to the Reporter, at the meeting Stossel talked up his upcoming projects -- on "junk science," "freeloaders" and "the permanent government," all favorite conservative fodder -- and made a pitch for corporate sponsors: "I certainly would encourage any of you who knows somebody who buys advertising on television to say 'please buy a couple of ads on those Stossel specials.'"

"... And Stossel is not alone. Many of the most famous members of the D.C. press corps -- the true power elite of American journalism -- accept high-paying corporate speaking engagements and have direct personal ties to the political candidates. The top echelon of Washington political reporters -- Cokie Roberts, Sam Donaldson, George Will, Andrea Mitchell and many others whose heads appear daily on the screen -- receive from $10-$30,000 (in Cokie's case) per appearance from industry groups like the National Association of Realtors, the American Hospital Association, the Public Relations Society of America and the Mortgage Bankers Association."

..."Over the last 18 months, all three networks, in an effort to combat what ABC News Vice President Richard Wald termed "the appearance of conflict of interest," have imposed guidelines that prohibit their correspondents from taking speaking fees from profit-making enterprises or groups representing those they may report on.

But the real compromises lie deeper -- in corporate sponsorship that defines the very parameters of what is considered acceptable discourse. Take the pundit talk shows, where a parade of center-to-right-wing talking heads appear each week to engage in what passes as political debate. From "This Week with David Brinkley" to "The McLaughlin Group," two corporate sponsors predominate: General Electric and Archer Daniels Midland, two of the biggest corporate recipients of subsidies, tax breaks and government contracts in the country."

http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1611
Take the Money and Talk
American Journalism Review June 1995
"But Roberts doesn't want to talk about the company that paid her fee. She doesn't like to answer the kind of questions she asks politicians. She won't discuss what she's paid, whom she speaks to, why she does it or how it might affect journalism's credibility when she receives more money in an hour-and-a-half from a large corporation than many journalists earn in a year.
"She feels strongly that it's not something that in any way, shape or form should be discussed in public," ABC spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said in response to AJR's request for an interview with Roberts."
Steve Roberts, Cokie's husband : "Roberts says U.S. News has not been intimidated by the "cranks," who he believes are in part motivated by jealousy. "I think a few people have appointed themselves the critics and watchdogs of our profession. I, for one, resent it."
...
Current speaking fee listings:

The major journalists set the tone for "conventional wisdom."

Brit Hume $30K-50K
http://www.speaking.com/speakers/brithume.html

Andrea Mitchell $20k - 25K
http://www.speaking.com/speakers/andreamitchell.html

Lisa Meyers $10K - 15K
http://www.speaking.com/speakers/lisamyers.html

Lawrence Kudlow $15,001 - $25,000
CNBC, contributing editor and columnist for National Review
Mercatus Center: http://www.mercatus.org/people.php/959.html?menuid=1
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?... 1108284

Fred Barnes Speaking fees: $7,501 - $10,000
Weekly Standard, Board of Scaife/Bradley/Coors-funded Institute Religion and Democracy http://www.ird-renew.org/News/News.cfm?ID=597&c=3 Funding: http://mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any...
Speaking bio at: http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?... 108284

Kate O'Beirne Speaking fees: $5,000 (if local) to $20,000
CNN Capital Gang, Washington editor of the National Review
Note - Former vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation
http://www.leadingauthorities.com/3727/O

Tucker Carlson $10,001 - $15,000
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?... 1108284

Robert Novak Fee - on request
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?... 108284

Lou Dobbs Fee - on request
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?... 08284

Sean Hannity
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?... 1108284

John Stossel Fee range: $30K - $50K
http://www.speaking.com/speakers/johnstossel.html

Laura Ingraham $15,001 - $25,000
Radio show, Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC, Columns in newspapers including Washington Post, USA Today, and the New York Sun
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?... 1108284

Tim Russert Fee - on request
http://www.washingtonspeakers.com/speakers/speaker.cfm?... 108284

Howard Fineman, Fee - on request
http://www.kepplerassociates.com/speakers/finemanhoward...

Enron, Buckraking, Punditgate

In 2002 it was disclosed that Enron had been paying journalists and commentators. This is only one corporation. How much of this s going on? How to find out?

Articles:
http://www.headlinemuse.com/Politics/moneyreporters.htm
Money, Power and Influence: Muckrakers Become Buckrakers by Richard Blow
Same article at http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/12360 /

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58606-2002Jan...
. . . And the Enron Pundits

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/12360 /

Right-wing funding support

Lawrence Kudlow, Mercatus Center
http://www.mercatus.org/people.php/959.html?menuid=1
Mercatus funding: http://www.mediatransparency.org/search_results/georgem...
$50,000 from Enron -- two $15,000 speaking fees and a $20,000 subscription to his New York economic research firm.

Arnaud de Borchgrave Editor at large - UPI
Senior Adviser and Director, Center for Strategic and International Studies - RW funding: http://mediatransparency.org/search_results/info_on_any...

William Kristol serves on the board of trustees of the Manhattan Institute (paid?)
Bill Kristol, while editor of the Weekly Standard, was paid $100,000 for serving on an Enron advisory board over two years.
Kristol says he does "a fair amount" of speaking to corporate groups and doesn't normally disclose it.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/12/143558/031#readmore

[txaslftist]

57. I really don't get the WSJ.

For decades they have had a fairly good reputation for being even-handed, albeit pro-business.

In the past ten years or so, they've really gone all the way over to being Republican shills. They've traded in decades of reputation for what? The opportunity to promote the Bush Family Empire?

They must be predicting a fairly long term coup d'estat on the part of the Bushies and Bush clones to justify the sacrifice in credibility they are making.

Fortunately, as anyone who had tech stocks in the 90s knows, the WSJ is not very good at predicting anything.

[Massachusetts]

58. And?????? Whats the point?????

:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[Freddie Stubbs]

128. The point is:

When reading a blog, you may want to keep in mind that the blogger may have an agenda that they are not disclosing.

[Just Me]

157. What you are suggesting is something akin to fear-mongering.

It's general enough such that you're not targeting this blog.

It's also general enough to caution everyone against all blogs.

It also suggests that no one is rational enough to eventually discern between bullshit and facts.

All of the foregoing is very concerning to me.

[jpgray]

59. This is like saying Kerry bought off Carville and Begala

Fucking nonsense--fully disclosed relationship between pundit and politician compared to cloak-and-dagger payoffs for support? Give me a break, WSJ. And Wonkette has to be one of the more worthless, vacuous blogs I've ever come across.

[ourbluenation]

62. 50 cents says this will be all over fauxnews/goptv

before the day is over. And, is anyone else enjoying the news coverage vs gloating they're doing in regards to rathergate - they have such a hard-on for that story its comical. They're almost delirious!!!

[Fleshdancer]

67. It wasn't a secret to anyone familiar to the campaign or the bloggers....

To call this news in stupid. Kos was extremely clear that he was a paid consultant for the Dean campaign. No secret there. Comparing this to the Armstrong situation is a stretch. And for the record, if my memory serves me right, Kos didn't always say wonderful things about the Dean campaign, but whenever he did say something (good or bad) he attached the "I'm a consultant for the campaign" disclaimer.

[msmcghee]

76. I disagree . .

He said he was a technical consultant - implying that his political views are a separate and independent issue. The campaign admits that the $3000 / month was to keep him from switching his support to another candidate.

If his blog was not for the purpose of publishing his independent poltical opinion - then this would not be an issue. But, that's why he blogs.

Taking any payments from someone interested in swaying that independent opinion is likely to be payola - period. If you care about the value of your opinion (your product) you don't taint it.

If you care more about $3000 a month on the bottom line - I guess the independence of your political opinion isn't so important.

[AP]

82. I agree with this post.

[RetroLounge]

97. Big surprise....

:eyes:

RL

[AP]

117. Why?

[DemBones DemBones]

154. Ding! Ding! Ding! A winning post here.

Either the independent nature of your opinion is important and you don't take money with strings attached, or you're a blogging whore.

[Just Me]

159. WSJ is doing a fine job of distracting you from the real issue, too.

Are we really as black/white analysts of distraction as the right-wing?

The issue is about OUR GOVERNMENT paying people to spread propaganda,...not about individuals being paid to spread ideas. There is an enormous distinction between those two actions. ENORMOUS, HUGE!!!

Can't you see that?

[Larkspur]

68. Here's the response I'm going to fax WSJ tonight

after I get home. I found out when contacting my Congresscritters, that faxing is more effective than emailing. Although, I will email Bulkeley and Bandler what I faxed to WSJ.


I read the Jan. 14, 2005 William. Bulkeley and James Bandler article “Dean Campaign Made Payments To Two Bloggers,” and it immediately came to my mind that these writers and the Wall Street Journal were performing “damage control” for the incompetent Bush Administration, and at the same time trying to smear the reputation of the most effective and courageous voice the Democratic Party has today – Howard Dean, candidate for the DNC Chair.

This story is the equivalent of the New York Times using Amad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile and convicted embezzler, as its primary source to hype Bush’s Iraq War.

Because Wall Street, with WSJ serving as its mouthpiece, are eyeing billions of dollars of profit, from Bush’s Social Security Privatization proposal, a proposal strongly opposed by Howard Dean, his followers, and most Democrats, it’s obvious that Wall Street and WSJ suffer major conflicts of interest between the Truth and Profits. By printing this intentionally misleading headline and subsequent article that insinuates that the Dean Campaign’s practice of hiring bloggers with voluntary campaign contributions is the same as the Bush Administration’s hiring Media pundits, like Armstrong Williams, with taxpayer funds, the intent is to allay public and legal pressure from the Bush Administration for intentionally running a propaganda campaign against the American people. If the Armstrong scandal leads to other discoveries that the Bush Administration made it a habit to purchase prominent Media spokespeople to promote its propaganda, the WSJ reputation will be tarnished forever.

The Wall Street Journal owes the public and Howard Dean a public apology for intentionally misleading the public and smearing Howard Dean’s name for equating his campaign’s use of voluntary campaign contributions to hire bloggers, who publicly disclosed their connection to the Dean campaign, with the Bush Administration’s use of taxpayer funds to hire reporters and prominent Media spokespeople, who are bound by ethic rules and who didn’t voluntarily disclose their pay from the Bush Administration, to promote the Administration’s propaganda.

Shame on the Wall Street Journal for printing this trashy article as sound reporting.


Note to editor: I’m a member of the Killingly, CT Democratic Town Committee and a former Dean Meetup Host for Norwich, CT and Killingly, CT. I still attend DFA meetups, but in Worcester, MA. I work in Marlborough, MA for a major financial services company and live in Northeast Connecticut, so Worcester, MA is conveniently on my way home from work.

[Just Me]

70. Fabulous letter!!!!

Awesome!!! :bounce:

[KoKo]

116. Excellent, Excellent Letter to them....Says it ALL!

Thank You!

[Sparkle]

145. That is a great letter.

But everyone knows that the editorial section of the WSJ is conservative to the core. They'll protect that idiot in the WH no matter what. Bastards.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

158. Right on! Here's a shorter version of your letter as a blurb.

"The Wall Street Journal is itself guilty of printing information for the sole purpose of protecting corporate profits in the stock market for General Electric, Disney, Viacom, and AOL Time-Warner.

The media mega-monopolies which are losing suscribers and profits to the decentralized free internet bloggers must certainly appreciate the Wall Street Journal's efforts to smear their competition for an audience like carnival barkers denouncing the show in the tent next door.

The time spent reading George Orwell is one of the best investments an American can make and I recommend it selfishly for the benefit of my own health and safety. Is the Wall Street Journal ready to own up with a similar disclaimer about its role in the media circus?"

[Just Me]

160. They are essentially protecting a corporate-controlled governance.

Our government and big corporations are so intermingled right now that it is hard to separate.

If the power of government is placed in the hands of corporations rather than "the people", we no longer have a democracy.

In other words, WSJ is protecting the government that advances corporate interests, not the people's interests.

I only post this because,..."the people" don't attach responsibility to corporations like they do their government,...for good reason.

The government is supposed to be OUR PROTECTION against predatory corporations, PROTECTION AGAINST ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

177. Agreed. Dominionism = "Let Us Prey".....n/t

[madfloridian]

79. Here is my post from GD Politics

I compiled this, as we need to be very sure what they are about. They are attempting to excuse Armstrong's behavior by unjustly turning it on our side. Here are some thoughts on this.

Zephyr's Miscalculation
Kos speaks out loudly.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/02014/6287
SNIP.."Fact is, my consulting work for Dean was noted in over a dozen
articles written at the time. And it was disclosed in this post, and in a
front-page disclaimer, right under the site logo. (See the site on the Way
Back Machine, and also notice how the Meetup graphic was for the Democratic
Party, not the Dean campaign.)
So what's going on? Zephyr is obsessed with imposing journalistic standards
on the blogosphere. We can debate the merits of this issue, and good points
can be made on both sides (I think it's a dumb idea). But what Zephyr did,
and which I find unconscionable, is that she took the Armstrong Williams
issue, and made up shit about our involvement with the Dean campaign to
score points.

And "made up sh*t" is the right way to word it. Jerome created the first
Dean website in early 2002. He created the first Dean-centric blog. He
signed up the Dean campaign for MeetUps and convinced Trippi to promote the
service. In other words, Jerome was the father of the Dean netroots. That's
why the Joe Trippi (not Zephyr!) eventually hired "us" (and by "us", I mean
Jerome). "END SNIP

Zephyr Teachout: Donkey Splat
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/1/13/231623/665
Jerome defends himself and Kos.
Jerome admirably defends himself.

More
It was well known about Kos...Long article here.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronic...
Web forum shapes political thinking
Dean consultant in Berkeley builds 'blog' into influential tool
Rob Morse, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, January 15, 2004
SNIP..."On a modest street in the flats of Berkeley there's a little yellow
bungalow
behind a shabby fence. It's one of those places you expect to find a pit
bull, but instead you find a bright young mayor of a city of about 70,000
liberal activists, writers, kibitzers, kidders and some folks who clearly
have a lot of time on their hands.

The city that Markos Moulitsas Zuniga runs isn't named Berkeley. It's called
Daily Kos ("Kos" was Moulitsas' Army nickname) and it's a city in the
metaphorical sense, reached by mouse and keyboard.

Daily Kos is a political Web log, or "blog," an online diary where diarists
can post anything they want. The political blogosphere is divided into right
and left halves, and this one is on the liberal side. It's run by a man
who is a paid consultant for Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean,
although he will accept any Democrat instead of President Bush."END SNIP

This was pretty well known to most of us. I think most folks knew it.

In addition it was linked from his blog in about these words:

"Disclosure: I do some consulting work for Howard Dean," and linked to a
longer explanation of same.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/13/202455/871
More from Kos on this. He is discussing it with Instapundit.

And from the Zephyr Teachout statement:
http://zonkette.blogspot.com/2005/01/financially-intere...

"This is now getting routine – Simon Rosenberg hired Matt Stoller,
presumably not just because he’s got good ideas, but because he already has
a “commentator,” “spokesperson,” role within the blogging media. The scale
is infinitely smaller, but its odd to live in a world where we don’t blink
when commentators are hired as spokespeople. Imagine Howard Dean hiring
Maureen Dowd!"

More about Stoller:
"Blogging of the President is a group blog done by a number of people. The
editor is Matt Stoller. He can be reached at [e-mail] . Chris Lydon,
Stirling Newberry, Jay Rosen, Ellen Nagler, Barry Ritholz, Ian Welsh, Marcy
Wheeler, Zephyr Teachout, Ally Giard, Justin Krebs, and Josh Koenig"
contribute.END SNIP

Zephyr, huh. And Trippi loudly endorsed Rosenberg. Maybe we have a whole lot of paid consultant stuff going around. You think?

Newberry and Stoller were Clark bloggers. If they were paid we have the same thing there. Did Kerry have paid consultants who blogged? When do the Democrats speak out?

Will the Democrats let Armstrong Williams be let off or will they speak out? This is not about a campaign, it is about our taxpayer money.

[candy331]

140. This may be where we can get a glimpse of what Dean will be like as Chair

Will he speak out on this issue, because by now all should know that being silent is just more fodder for the repubs. A small flame turns into a large fire if it is not put out and one can't just sit back and hope it blows itself out while the repubs stoke the flames.It may sound like a lot of nonsense but what hasn't been lately. Can he? Will he?

[prolesunited]

83. Send them a letter here

Write to William M. Bulkeley at [e-mail] and James Bandler at [e-mail]

What happened to logic?

[ProfessorGAC]

86. Logic Has Nothing To Do With It

There is no truth to this at all, since they are clearly implying a similarity to Williams. There is zero similarity, because it wasn't taxpayer money, it wasn't undisclosed, and the money was for consulting services, not for promotional services.

Buckley & Bandler are simply liars.
The Professor

[Just Me]

91. They're just covering up on behalf of their sponsors: our government.

More specifically, the neoCONimperialists.

They're apparently having some success, too. Even here in DU.

[madfloridian]

85. We just sent a donation to DFA because of this bunch of crap.

We are tired of it. There is no comparison to Armstrong Williams being paid with taxpayer money.

[Southsideirish]

113. Great idea - we will do the same!

[Robbien]

114. Also write to the FCC and ask that they investigate Williams

don't let the right wingers divert the attention. Keep the heat on the FCC and Williams.

Chairman Michael K. Powell: [e-mail]
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: [e-mail]
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: [e-mail]
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: [e-mail]
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: [e-mail]
Department of Justice: [e-mail]

[Plaid Adder]

101. I just spent some time looking at Armstrong Williams's deal with the devil

USA Today has it up as a PDF file. It was instructive. And kind of nauseating.

The big difference between what Zephyr Teachout (can that possibly be a real name?) is talking about and what happened with Williams is that Dean is not the federal government. What you have in AW's case is the state buying air time--WITH TAXPAYER MONEY--in order to disseminate propaganda. As an outsider presidential candidate, Dean could have bought as many bloggers as he wanted and it still wouldn't be Soviet-style propaganda because he wasn't the one in power.

You can argue about whether it is a good idea for a political candidate to spend his own money or his donors' money bloggers as 'consultants' and not disclose it. But one thing you can't dispute is that the dangers of that kind of dealing are vastly greater when the actual STATE is appropriating the people's money for the purpose of training them to approve of anything the government does.

That's exactly what always gets lost in htis whole tit-for-tat game that the media always plays: the difference that power makes. Oh, the left just did something they criticize the right for doing. Yeah, never mind the fact that one guy on the 'left' is doing it working out of his basement on a shoetring budget while it's standard operating procedure for just about everyone on the 'right' who's doing it using billions of corporate and government dollars and a horde of willing media trulls.

Sigh,

The Plaid Adder

[KoKo]

111. Plaid....

could you do an article on this, please. I think we're going to have to deal with more of this "distraction" trying to compare Internet Bloggers to what Williams did, taking our tax dollars and using them to promote Bush Propaganda.

It's the "Bush Manual of Special Ops" once again. Just like they rolled out Swift Boat Liars to distract voters from Kerry's honorable service, we are now going to be subjected to a Repug Campaign against Intenet Bloggers to discredit Dean and take the heat off Williams, all in one blow.

Maybe you could pull together some of this and expose it? :shrug:

[Just Me]

112. Yup. Amazingly, the WSJ's characterization of gvt propaganda as

"political payments to commentators" is just another fraud being perpetrated on the American people.

This article is disgusting and obviously serves as a means to cover-up reprehensible acts by our government (corporate sponsors) against our citizens.

:mad:

I am sick to death of corporate governance betraying/manipulating/abusing the loyalty and trust of the American people!!!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

141. What is the link to the .pdf? I couldn't find it...

[madfloridian]

118. Why doesn't our Democratic Party stand up against this.

They need to put spokespeople out there to clarify the situation.

I am so tired of this stuff.

[jasop]

136. They never stand up against anything...

Ever since the end of the clinton ERA the democrats act like scared little kids who get picked on in school and everyone stands around and watches thinking "God, why don't they fight back?" but really I think what needs to be done is everyone who stands around watching should all jump on that bully and whip his ass together.

[Just Me]

155. This is a game that requires a LOT of planning to win.

I think I can say with confidence that, a majority of Democrats never imagined the level of abuse which has been waged by this leadership in such a calculating and deceptive way.

It's going to take the creativity and passion of us all to thwart this "power" that destroys American values, principles, hopes and strength..

We must focus on supporting one another though,...and refuse to allow others to distract us from the objective of this war within.

[LynnTheDem]

120. Zephyr is FULL OF SHIT. But she's sure taking a BEATING for her bullshit

About time the whore gets smacked around a bit for her total constant spewing of bullshit.

Williamns: Paid with TAXPAYER MONEY and NO DISCLOSURE

2 bloggers: NOT paid with taxpayer money, and FULL DISCLOSURE.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/14/02014/6287

[Rainscents]

131. Sounds like to me...

Neo-Cons are trying to make sure Dean doesn't get the DNC Chair is the reason why they're doing this... Get it??? Neo-Cons did the same things when Dean was running for President for his scream. Neo-Cons are very afraid of Dean and they're going to try their best to "TRY" to bring up any dirt... This issue has nothing to do what Dean paid the blogger, which Dean didn't do anything illegal, however, if neo-cons can spin this (brain wash the listeners), they had surceased. We cannot let this happen and we cannot fight among ourselves. When neo-cons sees us fighting over this and break away from Dean, they had won the game. So, everyone, please, support Dean and don't let the NEO-CONS win this!!!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

133. They could give 2 shits about the DNC chair

it's all about conflating Williams' very unethical and possibly illegal conduct in the NATIONAL MEDIA with the actions of these very minor players in the astroturf wars of the blogoshpere.
It tries to make a tit for tat of 2 things which are not comparable.

[Beacho]

139. It's a twofer for the corporatists

slamming bloggers and log jamming Dean, who they fear.

[Just Me]

162. Now, THAT is the damned truth!!! Hitting two threats with one stone.

And they are obviously experts in targeting people's vulnerabilities.

We're all gullible and vulnerable and have "hot buttons".

It's just really frustrating to me, sometimes, that I and others on this board are so easily distracted or fail to recognize our own "buttons".

Our common enemy is really a very, well-oiled psy-ops machine.

That machine is going to be quite the challenge to overcome.

[Beacho]

132. My response via email

"You must be joking

I just read your article about Dean paying bloggers during the campaign. Let me ask you one question, how much taxpayer money did Dean spend?

Your article was a deceitful attempt at moral equivilency for Armstrong Williams actions and a quite pathetic one at that.

Both bloggers and the Dean campaign gave full disclosure, Williams did not

Both bloggers received private funds used for their intended purpose, Williams used tax payer money to commit fraud

There is no moral equivilency and trying the 'they do it too' gambit will not stop the outrage people feel about the corrupt practices of this administration"


Pathetic assholes

[Robbien]

134. Two pro-Thune bloggers in South Dakota were paid over $30k by Thune

but they did not disclose the fact. Did the Wall Street mention them, no of course not.

Did the WSJ mention the media firm who paid Armstrong Williams is now also running the media blitz on Social Security? That story is an investigative journalist's dream job. But the WSJ doesn't investigate because as they say their job is just to write down what they are told and report it word for word unquestioned.

[DemBones DemBones]

156. Ask THEM. Don't just post here, write the WSJ and give them the facts,

ask for an explanation.

[Just Me]

167. Actually, I would recommend giving an alternative media the facts.

Particularly since WSJ has already misrepresented what constitutes "political contributions".

Wouldn't you agree?

[Just Me]

164. You left out one vital issue: distinguishing gvt-sponsored propaganda,...

,...from campaign finance questions and paid media HOs.

You have the content,...but still lack the focus because,...well, here,...instead of

"Your article was a deceitful attempt at moral equivilency for Armstrong Williams actions and a quite pathetic one at that."

,...you could have written,...

"Your article was a deceitful attempt at moral equivilency for this administration's abuse of power in paying Armstrong Williams to spread manipulative propaganda against our people and a quite pathetic one at that."

After all,...we can NOT allow ourselves to be distracted from that fundamental issue which broadly impacts our people.

Yes? :bounce:

[StatBabe]

142. My e-mail and a response from one of the authors

Dear Mr. Bulkeley and Mr. Bandler,

Based on the content of your extremely biased article, it appears that the Wall Street Journal has sunk to a new low in defending the indefensibly corrupt practices of the Bush administration. While you are researching the bloggers that receive monetary support from various political interests, why don't you disclose all the right-wing shills that participate in various chat groups and the amount that every single political candidate, Democrat AND Republican, paid to similar bloggers in 2004 to promote their respective "causes"? If you actually had bothered to really research the issue, you would have come up with enough names of candidates and bloggers to fill a book!

As to the moral equivalence that you assign to the payments that the Dean campaign made to these bloggers, it boggles the mind that so-called "journalists" would actually have the audacity to equate a political candidate paying some bloggers a little CAMPAIGN money for PR with the $240,000 of TAXPAYER money for the undisclosed promotion of a partisan agenda! Exactly why should ANYONE care about money paid to bloggers from a political campaign??? After all, the money spent did NOT come from unsuspecting taxpayers, and I suspect that contributors to the Dean campaign would find little to fault with their candidate doing everything in his power to promote his cause! In addition, bloggers come in all shapes and sizes with the majority never purporting to be without a viewpoint or an "agenda". All things considered, anyone who actually reads and believes that blogs are unbiased sources of "news" has a screw loose! On the other hand, one does expect higher standards from a newspaper--especially a well-respected national newspaper like the Wall Street Journal!

Has this newspaper really sunk so low that it assumes that it can print such garbage, call it "news", and its readers will quickly "accept" such "news" as justification for the corrupt use of TAXPAYER money to promote a partisan agenda??? I have been a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal for a number of years, but my patience with the clear partisan agenda exhibited by this so-called "news" article has been strained to the breaking point! If I see many more pieces of right-wing, partisan drivel masquerading as "news", like what you men have generated in this article, I will end my subscription, and I suspect that I will not be alone. No newspaper is so "good" that it can repeatedly publish disingenuous, partisan crap presented as "news" without paying a high price for their clear bias!

Sincerely,

Martha Nunn

This is the response that I received from one of the authors (Mr. Bandler):

Dear Ms. Nunn,

You're probably right.

Best,

James

Quite frankly, I was surprised to receive a personal response. I must admit that I respect the guy for responding in a timely, courteous manner and actually admitting that I was "probably right." I wonder if he has already caught a lot of grief over that story.

At least, based on his response to me, Mr. Bandler does seem to "get it". It will be interesting to see what the Wall Street Journal does now. Although I think that it's a pretty pathetic justification for Armstrong Williams' behavior or the behavior of the Bush administration, I would not have been quite so disturbed by the article if it had been presented as an "opinion" piece, but as a "news" story, it is really biased, partisan rubbish!

[calimary]

149. Unfortunately, this reply is probably as far as it'll go. Unless, perhaps

you pursue it a little.

Your follow-up letter (if you chose to send one, that is) could be "Re your response 'you're probably right' - what do you mean... 'probably'?"

But this DOES have to be brought to their attention and objected to. You did well here! Evidently, you argued your extremely accurate and well-positioned case convincingly enough that you got this kind of response. Did you CC the letter higher up than him? Note also, the Wall Street Journal is quite the hag rag for the bushies. They whore like nobody's business. If EVER there are critical, slanted articles and especially stuff on the editorial pages that blindly favor the bush blunder-du-jour and denounce whoever is against it or whoever his opponent is, it will surely appear in the Wall Street Journal. It's a HUGE offender, in with the likes of the Washington Times - papers with considerable wrong-wing axes to grind.

Fellow DUers - here's one example where an LTTE or a letter to the reporter in question actually does hit home. Don't know how much overall good it'll do, straight off the bat here, but if it's part of a pattern - a REPETITIVE pattern, (at least some of) these lazy asses will start realizing that their writings are being viewed VERY critically by fact-savvy, well-informed readers who don't hesitate to call them on it. If you write a letter like this, with excellent rebuttal points in it, makes sure it's CC'ed to that reporter's editors, so the reporter knows others are aware that he's being corrected by an alert reader, and those others are aware that this has also been brought to the attention of the offending reporter.

If they think we don't care, they won't, either.

AND - if they think it's just an isolated complaint, they'll file it directly in the "round file" and forget about it.

BTW, a while ago I read (and, regretfully, did not save) an article about a reader who complained to the New York Times about its consistently downgrading the numbers of protestors at anti-war rallies - the most noticeable offense involving a rally she herself attended. Since this complainer had actually been there, she knew first-hand that there were profoundly bigger crowds than the paltry number the Times reported. She wrote in and complained. AND (MOST IMPORTANT HERE) she CC'ed her letter of complaint to the reporter, the editors, AND ALSO to the Washington Post - (OUCH! The Times' most vicious competitor!!!) AND ADDITIONALLY to an independent board of reporters ethics. What this means is - the New York Times got called out on its derelict reporting TO OTHER EYES - OUTSIDE the insular circle in the New York Times itself. The New York Times folks had been, in effect, publicly shamed. It could not ignore this complaint because it knew others in the business, including its biggest rival, had been informed of its screw-up. The Times printed a correction immediately - mainly because it had been shamed into doing so.

Good lesson to remember, 'eh?

[StatBabe]

170. A response from the other author...

Later, I received the following response from the other author (Bill Bulkeley):

Ms. Nunn:
You make several good points (as well as a number with which I disagree). But I'm interested in your statement that we should expose "the amount that every single political candidate, Democrat AND Republican, paid to similar bloggers in 2004 to promote their respective "causes"? " That would be a very significant story, and I'd be very interested in documenting that. If you have any information along those lines, I'd really appreciate it. I am familiar with the role of Thune's paid bloggers in the Daschle race, but I hadn't heard of others.

Bill

I have no intention of responding to this one because unlike Mr. Bulkeley, I do not think that the issue of paid bloggers is a "significant" story. In addition, it seems that his main reason for even raising this issue in this e-mail is to distract from the disingenuous nature of their story.

I agree that the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal generally reflects Bush policies, etc., but the problem with this particular story is that it was NOT on the op-ed page--it was presented as a "news" story. Given the limited space within any newspaper, it's an outrage that something so insignificant should be presented as a news story--particularly with the questionable analogy drawn between the Armstrong Williams scandal and the pay-offs for bloggers. In spite of the conservative nature of the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal, it's an excellent newspaper that generally relegates this sort of article to the op-ed page. In general, the news is presented in a reasonably objective fashion, which is one of the reasons that I have been a subscriber of the Wall Street Journal for several years. And believe it or not, the Wall Street Journal has occasionally broken some big news stories!

There's an important distinction that is often missed by BOTH liberals and conservatives--that is, the op-ed page of any newspaper is "fair game" for bias, an agenda, opinions, or whatever you want to call it. HOWEVER, "news" stories are supposed to be devoid of an "agenda" or the journalist's "opinion". When journalists fail to treat news items in a dispassionate manner, bias becomes a serious problem.

My primary complaint with this story was the placement of the item as "news" instead of putting it on the op-ed page where it properly belongs. Mr. Bulkeley apparently still doesn't "get it".

BTW, I did send copies of this e-mail to ALL the editors, etc. at the Wall Street Journal. I wanted to make sure that my e-mail would be read by someone. I was just surprised that it actually was read and responded to by both authors. I guess that it just goes to show that writing e-mail sometimes works!

[Just Me]

180. NOTE THE DISTRACTION FROM ABUSE OF POWER,...

,...BY THEIR SPONSORS, OUR OWN NeoCONimperialist (and corporate whoring) regime.

Take note of their "targets".

Are they aiming to be a vehicle that serves "the people" who are SUPPOSED to be in charge of this so-called "democracy"?

OR are they aiming to destroy anyone who threatens their power?

JUDGE BY ACTIONS.

[StatBabe]

172. And a second e-mail from the first author

Dear Ms. Nunn,

Thanks so much for reading us.

Best,

James


This guy seems like a decent sort. As I said before, I think that Mr. Bandler "gets it" concerning the biased nature of the story.

[Just Me]

169. Damn fine letter!!! Ask them to investigate the administration's

practice of deceit against the American people next time you write such an articulate letter. Avoid the distractive partisanship that the right-wingers impose to divide and conquer our own people and stay focused on those who are USING such manipulative tactics: the neoCONimperialists in charge.

This paper has an ethical duty to report facts about a governance which is damaging the best interests of "the people",...."the people" who are supposed to hold the power of their governance, "the people" who DEFINE and MAKE REAL a democracy. The failure to accurately inform is evidence of an intent to establish a ****ocracy rather than embellish democracy. That failure is ANTI-DEMOCRACY and ANTI-AMERICAN and PRO-GREED!!!!

Profits over people destoys democracy.

I'll say it again.

Profits over people destroys democracy!!!

One more time,...

PROFITS OVER PEOPLE DESTROYS DEMOCRACY!!!!

Any so-called "news source" which prioritizes profits over our people,...is a fascist-generating enemy!!!

[Sparkle]

143. I thought bloggers had no credibility?

<smirk>

[David Zephyr]

144. Dean Is Truly Perceived by Many of the Establishment as a Threat.

The very fact that the Wall Street Journal would work this hard to equate the felonious behavior of Armstrong Williams with the a blogger, especially Zephyr Teachout (another great Zephyr) who was above board in her support and work for Howard Dean is just laughable and only shows how some of the establishment truly feel threatened by Howard Dean.

If this is all they have, then they'd better get out the spliced video of Howard's scream again.

Go Howard!

[Bouncy Ball]

146. So let me get this straight

Dean spent money that WASN'T taxpayer money to two bloggers to support his campaign in their blogs.

Big deal. Am I missing something here?

bush spent almost a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayer money paying a journalist to spin his NCLB proposal.

Seems like there's a pretty big difference to me.

The timing of this story smells fishy, too.

[Toucano]

163. You're not missing a thing.

It's an old trick. "Quick, everybody! Look over there!"

Government via distraction. That's what we have.

[ClarkUSA]

168. Why is Zephr Teachout doing this?

She must have known how this would play.

[Toucano]

179. True, but the WSJ

is the one taking pains to make the comparison to Armstrong Williams -- when no reasonable comparison is evident.

You have a good point, though.

[killbotfactory]

171. WTF does this have to do with anything?

He hired bloggers as consultants who already supported him... AND?

[AlCzervik]

173. This was leaked by someone who doesn't want Dean as DNC head imo.

[leesa]

184. Pretty transparent. I'm sure the WSJ also does not want Dean as DNC head

[Just Me]

187. A kick to "reality" before I go to sleep *LOL*.

[daleo]

189. I knew this was coming

I said it in a post a few days back. I am not trying to brag, just saying this stuff is predictable as the sun coming up in the morning.

And, as many have pointed out, this is mis-direction and not the same thing at all.

[98geoduck]

190. Totally agree...

Dean's stance against monopolized media and corporate welfare is going to bring the whores out in droves.

[designforce]

196. Let me think about this

So a 'candidate' paid someone to do something, basically.

But the Prez and his admin who supposedly work for we the people, paid someone to push their point of view onto the public.

Let me think about this again....

So using OUR taxes to pay for his publicity is not bad because a 'candidate' paid some bloggers?

Well, I guess this is what passes for reality in amerika today.

I guess it is true, tell the big lie often enough and the lemmings will follow you anywhere.

Can't wait for the mid-term elections. Then we will see if any of this has any traction.