Doug Bandow, a senior scholar at the Cato Institute and a syndicated columnist via the Copley News Service, took payments from lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write columns favorable to Abramoff's clients.
Bandow acknowledged the payments after he was confronted about the payments by a reporter from BusinessWeek Online. He resigned from Cato, and was given an indefinite suspension by Copley News.
***
How many conservative pundits are on the take?
At least four journalists have been cited in the past year as being paid by the Bush Administration to write favorable items, or make favorable presentations on television, about administration programs or proposals.
Also, conservative pundits Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer helped President Bush on his state-of-the-union speech, then — without acknowledging their roles — touted the speech on Fox News Channel.
***
While Abramoff is not part of the Bush Administration, he is nonetheless at the center of a far-reaching criminal corruption investigation involving several members of Congress, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Prosecutors are examining whether he sought to bribe lawmakers in exchange for legislative help.
***
This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - joe
Yeh, but how many "paid" professional journalists
are asked by their editors to write, or in a lot of cases re-write a story that is harsh or critical of the administration...you're spinning now, aren't you?
2 - Joe
Liberals NEVER distort the truth!
3 - Dave Nalle
How many conservative pundits are on the take?
Wow, wouldn't it be cool if you pretended to actually BE an objective journalist for once and considered how many pundits are on the take without only looking at conservatives. Do you think Soros isn't paying off columnists too?
Dave
4 - Aaman
Valid point, Dave, but there is a qualitative difference between the party in power (the Government) paying off the press, and the numerous public groups that might do the same
5 - Scott Butki
Dave: I think that comparison/criticism only works if you can point to journalists who were paid directly from former Democrat presidents administrations.
6 - Dave Nalle
Paying off the press is paying off the press, whether it's done by the administration or a PAC or a party organization or a candidate's campaign. It's been going on, and both parties have been doing it, for over 200 years. It also takes more subtle forms than simply hiring a journalist to write a puff piece. When a journalist is hired to write a candidate bio, for example and then writes a series of highly favorable articles. When a newspaper is owned by someone who has a pronounced political position and uses it as the basis for editorial policy. When journalists get junkets - just like congressmen - from companies or wealthy individuals. When a journalist gets a government job in reward for writing in a particular way. When a millionaire underwrites several of the largest political blogs on the internet. When a sportswriter gets free box seats.
It's nothing new, and while it may be somewhat sleazy, it's become so much a part of journalism that trying to actually root it out in any comprehensive way might be impossible, and just targeting those who support the administration only makes the problem worse.
Dave
7 - Scott Butki
Wow, that was a fast response.
Yes I'm sure there have always been some journalists getting money for their work.
But I think it's a mistake to not grow concerned when it is becomingly increasingly overt - I mean surely you see a difference between the administration paying a pundit to praise No Child Left Behind and an education group to pay another to write about it.
Both are now biased - or more biased than usual - but one is getting taxpayer money from the very bodies involved in making and defending the laws.
To use your "it's always happened argument" we could argue that the news today about how much wiretapping has been going on is not that big a deal sine there has always been some degree of espionage and surveillance of Americans.
8 - Dave Nalle
There is certainly an issue with the use of taxpayer money, but how is paying a journalist to report on something in a particular way different from paying to put an ad in a newspaper or a PSA on TV? I agree that there IS a difference, but how meaningful is it?
Dave
9 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave,
If I could get 10 shekels for each time I've told my kids that, "'everybody's doing it' doesn't make it right," I could do a handsome weekly shopping for a while.
'Everybody's doing it' doesn't make it right.
10 - RogerMDillon
Joe, please cite what liberals are getting paid by the current administration. I don't want either side doing it, so let's see the list.
What a shock! Nalle supporting the administration's dubious activities. Soros and Scaife, a name the right leaves out when railing against Soros even though the man does the exact same thing, can do whatever they like with their money, but how can you not see a difference with the administration buying propaganda with taxpayer money is baffling.
It's only impossible to root this practice out when people have your defeatist attitude and are willing to bend over and take it. Bringing these actions to light and exposing the perpetrators does not make it worse, but I do understand that it bothers you when your boy gets caught doing it.
11 - Temple Stark
One side has not speculation documented facts; the other has "well they MUST have done it, too" without documented proof. I go with the facts every time. Moral equivalency never works in theory or actuality and only in the global view, nothing less.
Today, 2005, we have documented facts so deal with them, not the imaginary. It's very simple.
12 - Temple Stark
... [but] documented facts.
13 - Dave Nalle
If I could get 10 shekels for each time I've told my kids that, "'everybody's doing it' doesn't make it right," I could do a handsome weekly shopping for a while.
'Everybody's doing it' doesn't make it right.
And when did I say anything like that? Everyone's doing it and has been for a long time, and it may not be right, but it also may not be wrong, and it's silly to rail against human nature when you can't change it.
Dave
14 - david r. mark
It's Dave Nalle's nature to make a broad swipe without any evidence to back it up.
Dave, find names of journalists who admitted to being paid by the Clinton Administration to propagandize in a magazine article, syndicated column, or television or radio show, and I'll be happy to listen to you.
Until you do though, sorry, your opinion isn't factual attribution.
15 - david r. mark
Joe (from comment #1 or #2):
The question is whether it's right for the government to pay journalists to write or say positive things about the administration, without documenting that they were paid to do so.
In other countries, we call this government propaganda. We don't take seriously the government-backed newspapers in communist countries or dictatorships, because we know they are just touting the party line.
In the U.S., though, under Bush, we have evidence of multiple journalists being paid to write or say nice things about the administration programs. We have proof that the administration created undocumented video news releases, which were distributed to key television markets in swing states, without any documentation that the source was not a freelance journalist, but in fact the government. The non-partisan General Accountability Office found that to be "covert propaganda," and legislation to prevent that from happening again has received bipartisan support in the Senate.
Does "everybody do it," as Dave Nalle and other conservatives allege?
The GAO says no. I read the report, and it clearly says that with the exception of two undocumented VNRs during the Reagan Administration -- perhaps inadvertent -- there was no such thing as an undocumented VNR prior to Bush.
To my knowledge, there haven't been any paid propagandists, at least not one that the GAO has pointed out. That's Republican and Democratic administrations.
Joe, you are suggesting the conservative myth of "liberal media bias," but it just doesn't stick. It's a myth that conservatives throw out in order to justify the existence of talk radio and Fox News Channel. But there's no conspiracy among journalists. If there were, the Bush Administration wouldn't have gotten a free ride for much of the past five years.
16 - david r. mark
Dave (regarding comment #8), the difference is that the PSA is documented as being paid for by the government. The journalists in question and the undocumented VNRs are just that -- undocumented. The American people weren't supposed to know that these positive items were propaganda.
17 - Dave Nalle
And it is in David Mark's nature to target only the people he sees as his political enemies for criticism and never present balancing facts or any kind of context or perspective which might interfere with making his attack.
David, do you think that the paid propagandists come out and announce their perfidy when they don't get caught? Are you that naive?
Anyway, the standard practice in the Democratic party is to reward journalists who do puff pieces with biography ghostwriting jobs, minor government appointments, or special access for future puff pieces. How is this different?
Do you excuse Michael Kranish for writing Kerry propaganda in the Boston Globe during the last election when he was also being employed to write on Kerry's behalf by Public Affairs and by the Kerry campaign?
How about the unlabeled VNRs produced by the Clinton administration - especially the department of HHS - which are virtually identical to the ones you've gone after Bush for?
Or sticking with Clinton, how about the money paid by the ONDCP to various news outlets to publish press releases as if they were news articles on drug issues which they would not have normally covered - essentially placing ads, but not labeled as such.
The point being that the stuff you accuse Bush of was done by prior administrations and no one raised a stink. It's only a problem now because it's Bush doing it and you're here to blow it up into an issue.
Dave
18 - Eric Berlin
But would it be fair to defend these practices as being "right," Dave, just because "no one's around" to blow them up?
For example, Washington desperately needs lobbying reform. Tom DeLay's orchestration of forcing lobbying firms to only hire Republicans has only exacerbated a problem that has been festering for decades (under both GOP and Dem administrations).
McCain and Feingold are making some noise on tackling this particular problem, and I hope they make more headway than with their noble albeit flawed campaign to reform campaign finance.
19 - david r. mark
Dave, I'll stick with the nonpartisan GAO, which found that while the Bush Administration committed "covert propaganda" with its undocumented VNRs, neither the Clinton nor first Bush Administration was ever guilty of the same.
Again, Dave, I'll give your side of the issue credibility if/when you produce a single example of a journalist paid by the Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc., administrations to write columns or magazine articles, or appear on television, in support of administration programs, without offering a disclaimer saying they were paid to do so.
To the best of my knowledge, the GAO has never found such an example. Perhaps you know better?
20 - Dave Nalle
ut would it be fair to defend these practices as being "right," Dave, just because "no one's around" to blow them up?
Whether they are made an issue of doesn't change the nature of them. But at the same time, I'm not convinced they're wrong. Corporations do the exact same thing with no liability for it, and I suspect that most people you ask would find it right when they agreed and wrong when they disagreed. I certainly think ONDCP propaganda either credited or uncredited - and usually full of lies - is wrong. But I might be less incensed if it was something promoting social security reform.
McCain and Feingold are making some noise on tackling this particular problem, and I hope they make more headway than with their noble albeit flawed campaign to reform campaign finance.
Forgive me if I don't see much hope for reform given their dismal track record.
Dave
21 - Dave Nalle
I love it when you say 'non-partisan GAO' about an organization composed almost entirely of left-leaning bureaucrats whose jobs date back to the Johnson administration. The fact that they aren't elected doesn't make them non-partisan. And this is a perfect example of how you spin things.
Dave, I'll stick with the nonpartisan GAO, which found that while the Bush Administration committed "covert propaganda" with its undocumented VNRs, neither the Clinton nor first Bush Administration was ever guilty of the same.
Except that they were and it has been documented. Except that back then no one attached the word 'guilty' to it because it was SOP and no one raised it as an issue.
Again, Dave, I'll give your side of the issue credibility if/when you produce a single example of a journalist paid by the Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc., administrations to write columns or magazine articles, or appear on television, in support of administration programs, without offering a disclaimer saying they were paid to do so.
Ah, so it's okay when it's a campaign and not an administration or when it's a PIRG or PAC associated with the administration that pays for it? Nice way to weasel around the issue.
To the best of my knowledge, the GAO has never found such an example. Perhaps you know better?
To the best of my knowledge the GAO has never actually looked for such an example.
Dave
22 - david r. mark
Dave, the offer is open to you. Find a specific example of another journalists being paid by a previous presidential administration, and I'll give you credibility. Until then, all you have is your twisted "Bush at any cost" opinions.
And since Republicans and Democrats officially consider the GAO and the CRS non-partisan, I'll stick with the definition.
23 - david r. mark
"To the best of my knowledge the GAO has never actually looked for such an example." Dave Nalle.
Again, facts are a funny thing, Dave. You don't use them. You go with "You're wrong because I say you're wrong." It just doesn't fly.
Have you read the GAO report on Bush's "covert propaganda"? I have. They state very clearly that the Reagan Administration had two undocumented VNRs. The elder Bush and Clinton used documented VNRs -- government announcements that were clearly documented as such.
Put the pieces of the puzzle together, Dave:
1) The Bush Administration used undocumented VNRs -- something Clinton didn't do.
2) The Bush Administration paid journalists to write or say favorable things about administration programs -- something Clinton didn't do.
3) The Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld hired a subcontractor, Lincoln Group, to pose as journalists and place positive items in the Iraqi press. It's being investigated by the U.S. military, as it breaks military rules.
4) The Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld created the Baghdad Press Club, through which Iraqi journalists were paid large sums -- by Iraqi pay standards -- to write positive stories for the Iraqi press and to film positive stories for Iraqi television. It's also being investigated by the U.S. military, as it breaks military rules.
You don't see a trend? You really think this is ok, and that "everybody does it"? Because the GAO, again, doesn't think so. And the military, according to the recent articles, doesn't think so, either.
Isn't it possible that the Bush Administration -- unique among presidential administrations -- believes in using propaganda, even though it's against the law and goes against the spirit of a free press?
24 - Dave Nalle
Have you read the GAO report on Bush's "covert propaganda"? I have.
I have now.
They state very clearly that the Reagan Administration had two undocumented VNRs. The elder Bush and Clinton used documented VNRs -- government announcements that were clearly documented as such.
Not exactly correct. They bring these up as specific examples. They do not say that they are the only examples or indicate that they are not merely representative examples of a much larger pool. In fact, they suggest in one of the footnotes that the use of VNRs is so widespread that it pervades the entire news industry.
Put the pieces of the puzzle together, Dave:
1) The Bush Administration used undocumented VNRs -- something Clinton didn't do.
The definition of an 'undocumented' VNR here is very, very snarky. They came in packages with accompanying material which clearly labeled them as VNRs. The GAO report claims that the video reports themselves did not cite HHS as the source for the information, but the fact is that the information conveyed in the HHS VNRs could obviously only come from HHS, so that complaint is pretty lame. And on the more important issue of whether the intent of the VNRs was to promote or market an agenda the GAO found HHS and CMS not to be at fault, because these VNRs were primarily for the dissemination of information, not promotion of an agenda.
2) The Bush Administration paid journalists to write or say favorable things about administration programs -- something Clinton didn't do.
Again, I say there's no difference between paying someone for a puff piece and promising them a ghostwriting job or special access in exchange for writting favorable articles.
3) The Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld hired a subcontractor, Lincoln Group, to pose as journalists and place positive items in the Iraqi press. It's being investigated by the U.S. military, as it breaks military rules.
4) The Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld created the Baghdad Press Club, through which Iraqi journalists were paid large sums -- by Iraqi pay standards -- to write positive stories for the Iraqi press and to film positive stories for Iraqi television. It's also being investigated by the U.S. military, as it breaks military rules.
What military rules do these actions break, exactly? The military certainly isn't prohibited from producing propaganda. Have you ever read Stars and Stripes?
You don't see a trend? You really think this is ok, and that "everybody does it"? Because the GAO, again, doesn't think so. And the military, according to the recent articles, doesn't think so, either.
I do think that everybody does it. According to the GAO report 78% of news editors admitted to using VNR material in 1991 and I'm sure it's as high or higher now. Whether it's right or not is an interesting question. If the information is accurate and it's reviewed by an editor, what actual difference does it make whether it came from a VNR from HHS or an interview with a deputy director at HHS?
Isn't it possible that the Bush Administration -- unique among presidential administrations -- believes in using propaganda,
Do you REALLY want to pursue this ridiculous claim? Ever heard of Franklin Roosevelt? His administration lasted almost 16 years. Did he ever use propaganda? Come on, be honest.
even though it's against the law and goes against the spirit of a free press?
No one is being forced to use VNRs. They're just a source of information. As for paying reporters for favorable stories, that's more questionable, but theoretically the marketplace will take care of them. When they're exposed they'll lose credibility and end up like Rober Novak.
Dave
25 - joe
free ride? You're kidding...right?