http://www.reconsider.org/tidbits/2000-01-29%20%20Funny%20op-ed.htmThe column by Mathew Miller in the Post Standard (Jan. 22,2000) was distressing to say the least. In it he attempts to say that Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was right in trying to influence the media to change the content of our TV shows because he feels the message is a good one. "Drug czar?" Journalists use the term because no one can
remember the alphabet-soup in the phrase "Director of the ONDCP." But this
week after revelations that Gen. Barry McCaffrey has been paying the
networks to inject his reefer-madness worldview into primetime TV shows, the
abbreviation is obvious: it's the Office of National Drug Censorship and
Propaganda.
We now know that those scary overdose scenes on "ER" were bought and paid
for out of McCaffrey's billion-dollar drug-war-chest. What kinds of
drug-scare themes and Drug War endorsements can we expect on TV shows in
weeks to come?
How about a Martin Luther King special that shows racial profiling and high
African-American incarceration rates in a favorable light?
Perhaps a 4th-of-July TV movie endorsing no-knock drug raids, clarifying the
logic of seizing property from legally innocent citizens, and featuring a
cameo appearance by Georgia Congressman Bob Barr to show how free/fair
elections can be canceled for the good of all citizens.
Maybe we'll see a light-hearted "LA Law" episode on those wacky cops in the
Rampart precinct of Los Angeles. Student study guides, supplied by the DEA,
will include "Knowing when extortion should be ignored" and "Corruption?
What the heck. It's for a good cause."
For the edification of Californians and those in other states that passed
those pesky medical marijuana bills that McCaffrey hates so much, CBS will
feature the authoritative legal documentary "States-rights: Old idea, bad
idea."
And for his grand finale, to be aired nationwide on Veterans' Day, Gen.
McCaffrey can rig a heroic script for a TV mini-series depicting a
full-scale military invasion of Colombia. The "TV Guide" program synopsis:
"Watch piles of coca leaf blazing in the tropical sun while peasants scurry
into the jungle to plant corn and beans instead."
According to confidential sources, the Clinton administration, having
defended McCaffrey's payola program, is planning to use his novel approach
to aid enforcement of other laws, as well. Their priorities are
predictable. For programs to air between April 1 and April 15th,
broadcasters will be paid hefty sums by the IRS to insert subliminal
messages into prime-time shows: "I WANT TO PAY MY TAXES. I WANT TO PAY MY
TAXES."
An anonymous Clinton aide projects wide applications of McCaffrey's approach
in government. "An ounce of brainwashing is worth a pound of enforcement,"
he said. American law and politics may never be the same. Thanks, Barry!
McCaffrey's ostensible "anti-drug" messages are also pro-Drug-War messages
supporting a burgeoning federal drug-enforcement bureaucracy (at $18 billion
it's 36 times the size of the inflation-adjusted 1970 drug budget).
Irrational fear of drugs leads to an irrational embracing of a Drug War
which, in its totality, is morally questionable at best, and morally
reprehensible in many respects. U.S. media should spend as much time
describing the drug prohibition problem as they do the drug addiction
problem. They are equally serious.
ABC-TV has already pulled out of their arrangement with McCaffrey saying it was not comfortable with his demanding to review shows before they aired. In his Drug War zeal, McCaffrey has betrayed democracy, which thrives on the free flow of information and opinion. Government-hired speech defeats the First Amendment as effectively as direct censorship. In a free society, the government must follow, not shape, the will of the people. McCaffrey should resign.
So there have been incidents of media manipulation, and lies from presidents back to who knows when, Watergate or what have you. And Bush's call for an end to all this is an even bigger lie.loseyourname said:The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts.[/list]
Informal Logic said:So when will Bush be tagged on all the lies he has told and is still telling?
Beginning with deceptions about invading Iraq (connection between 9-11 and Saddam, WMDs, etc.) to current claims such as Social Security is bankrupt...no time to list it all--where have you been?sid_galt said:So what are the big lies GW has told which makes him get the "blue ribbon" in credibility gap?
Where can I read that SS is bankrupt?SOS2008 said:Beginning with deceptions about invading Iraq (connection between 9-11 and Saddam, WMDs, etc.) to current claims such as Social Security is bankrupt...no time to list it all--where have you been?
The story has changed as to when SS will be bankrupt, as well as use of words such as "crisis," which constitute deception, but the point is he lies. As was posted in another thread:russ_watters said:Where can I read that SS is bankrupt?
Whether not allowing his college grades to be released, or not wanting kids to know he smoked marijuana, or whether he fulfilled his term in the Guard, or as you yourself have noted, his use of unethical campaign tactics--this written by Peter Clothier:Your president, in his first State of the Union address (February 27, 2001), promised to make sure that no Social Security money was used for any other program. He specifically said: "To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone."
What Bush did in his first fours years was he looted the sacred Social Security trust fund...the shameless Bush now admits it. This is what he has been saying lately in his Social Security scare speeches. "The money-payroll taxes going into Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust."
Now that's what he says. "There is no trust."
He's been anything but honest from the day one. And as for the war in Iraq, and many threads devoted to this, with regard to the "credibility gap" with other countries, Clothier continues:...a documentary entitled, aptly, "Bush's Brain." It was the story of your Rove, and his Machiavellian machinations to elevate you, first to the governorship of Texas, then to the Presidency of the United States. It was a story of outright cheating, lies, deceit--anything it took to destroy opponents and clear the field for your incompetence. It was the destruction of Ann Richards, on your way to the Texas Governor's mansion, and of John McCain on your way to the White House. (...how McCain could have come back to support you, after your deplorable attack on his war service to this country, and your scurrilous, heartless rumor-mongering about his black, adopted "love child"--as you people had the boundless, reckless temerity to suggest.) It was the story, too, of the crushing of Max Cleland in your ruthless pursuit of even greater Republican power when you were already in the White House.
This all aside from the media manipulation, etc., that is discussed above......as you spoke before the assembled European community, pontificating about things like transatlantic unity, and democracy, and peace, and freedom, when everything you have done as President of the United States amounts to an assault on those very same values.
Previous post:SOS2008 said:The story has changed as to when SS will be bankrupt, as well as use of words such as "crisis," which constitute deception, but the point is he lies...[emphasis added, irony noted]
Should I read that as a correction/retraction of your previous claim...?current claims such as Social Security is bankrupt... [emphasis added]
Back to semantics games, okay...and this addresses media bias as well, perruss_watters said:Previous post: Should I read that as a correction/retraction of your previous claim...?
Don't think you can slip such things past me.
In its February 3 edition, USA Today not only failed to challenge a George W. Bush distortion about Social Security-- it actually changed Bush's remarks to make them more accurate.
Summarizing Bush's case for privatizing the program, reporter Judy Keen explained: "Two days after winning re-election, Bush said his top priority would be Social Security, which he says will go into the red in 2018 and won't have enough money to pay promised benefits in 2042." And in a Q & A piece, the paper made the same claim: Answering the question, "Is Social Security bankrupt?" the paper responded that "Bush says that in 2042, it won't be able to pay 100 percent of guaranteed benefits; CBO says 2052."
But Bush's claims about Social Security's solvency have not usually been so nuanced. In a January 11 appearance, Bush spoke of a system that would be "flat bust, bankrupt" by the time workers in their 20s were set to retire. And during the State of the Union address that prompted USA Today's coverage, Bush gave his most familiar description of Social Security's finances: "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt."
That claim is misleading, if not completely false; the Social Security trustees, using very conservative assumptions about economic growth, predict that the program will be able to pay about 75 percent of benefits after 2042, while the Congressional Budget Office believes that point will come ten years later. Even then, the system will be able to pay more to future retirees than current recipients get; and some economists argue that if the economy grows about as quickly in the future as it has in the past, Social Security may in fact never run short of cash.
By changing Bush's false claim to a more accurate one, USA Today committed a serious journalistic error. The primary news value in Bush's comments was their deceptive nature; by "improving" them, USA Today did Bush a favor-- and its readers a disservice.