From Delaware County Daily Times, Jan. 27

Editorial: Why partisan P.R. in the press poses danger 

The president has spoken. On Wednesday, Jan. 26 George W. Bush declared it is now the official policy of the United States to stop putting conservative pundits on the public payroll -- and then stand by, saying nothing, as they pose as independent journalists without disclosing their financial ties to their masters in government. 

"All our Cabinet secretaries must realize that we will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda," Bush said at a news conference. "Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."

Notwithstanding the odd image of an agenda standing on its feet, instead of on the strength of its merits, Bush declared that there "needs to be a nice independent relationship between the White House and the press, the administration and the press."

The topic came up because on Wednesday, Jan. 26 it was revealed that Maggie Gallagher, a syndicated columnist who is known for pontificating on marriage -- but only for straight people -- was the recipient of $21,500 from the Health and Human Services Department to help its top officials plug a $300 million program that promoted the import of matrimony.

Gallagher never revealed the arrangement to her readers. "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said to The Washington Post. "I don’t know. You tell me."

OK, Maggie. You sure did violate every ethical standard in journalism. And you should be drummed out of the business -- if you were a journalist to begin with. But since you’re nothing more than a conservative hack masquerading as a journalist, when it’s convenient, you’re probably safe. Now your readers know exactly where you stand.

Gallagher is the second media "personality" in recent days to be unmasked as a paid shill for the Bush administration. Armstrong Williams, another conservative columnist and TV talk-show host, was disgraced when it was revealed he took $241,000 from the federal Education Department to drum up support for Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" law in his writings and on his program. He, too, neglected to tell his audience who was buttering his bread. 

Williams was fired by his syndicator and yanked off the air after that story broke. At the time, he apologized profusely while maintaining he didn’t know he did anything wrong. And he reportedly told his colleagues that there were "others" in similar circumstances, while declining to name them.

So who else is on the Bush administration’s payroll? The U.S. House Committee on Government Reform is investigating the use of taxpayer dollars for public relations campaigns. It found the administration spent a record $88 million on such contracts in 2004, more than double the amount spent in 2000, according to the Associated Press. Doubtless more names will surface, and more agendas will be revealed.

Why does any of this matter? It’s important because the public needs to know that its reporters are doing their best to present the unvarnished facts absent a personal, political or financial agenda. If the public cannot tell the difference between a reporter and a paid political operative, it’s likely to fall prey to any number of prevaricators -- and the results can be disastrous. Some say support for the invasion of Iraq is a perfect example.

The line between politicians and the press has never been blurrier. The rise of the 24-hour news cycle, and all that dead air to fill, has helped. So have short-sighted news executives who allow their on-air "talent" to take leaves of absence to run for public office and then return to their shows as if nothing had changed. 

Bush took a good step Wednesday, Jan. 26 toward ridding the airwaves of the most odious conflicts of interest, if he meant what he said. It’s not like there will be any shortage of supplicants willing to do his bidding -- for free. 

But the basic responsibility has to be on the shoulders of the reporters or pundits themselves. If they have a conflict, they should let their audience know about it -- so the audience can take that into consideration when weighing the merits of an argument. The news business is based on trust. Once that trust is violated, it can never be fully regained.

Just ask Maggie Gallagher and Armstrong Williams.