Third columnist caught with hand in the Bush till

gldstwmn · #1 01-27-2005, 09:49 PM

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

Jan. 27, 2005 | And three makes a trend.

By Eric Boehlert

One day after President Bush ordered his Cabinet secretaries to stop hiring commentators to help promote administration initiatives, and one day after the second high-profile conservative pundit was found to be on the federal payroll, a third embarrassing hire has emerged. Salon has confirmed that Michael McManus, a marriage advocate whose syndicated column, "Ethics & Religion," appears in 50 newspapers, was hired as a subcontractor by the Department of Health and Human Services to foster a Bush-approved marriage initiative. McManus championed the plan in his columns without disclosing to readers he was being paid to help it succeed.

Responding to the latest revelation, Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at HHS, announced Thursday that HHS would institute a new policy that forbids the agency from hiring any outside expert or consultant who has any working affiliation with the media. "I needed to draw this bright line," Horn tells Salon. "The policy is being implemented and we're moving forward."

Horn's move came on the heels of Wednesday's report in the Washington Post that HHS had paid syndicated columnist and marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher $21,000 to write brochures and essays and to brief government employees on the president's marriage initiative. Gallagher later wrote in her column that she would have revealed the $21,000 payment to readers had she recalled receiving it.

The Gallagher revelation came just three weeks after USA Today reported that the Education Department, through a contract with the Ketchum public relations firm, paid $240,000 to Armstrong Williams, a conservative African-American print, radio and television pundit, to help promote Bush's No Child Left Behind program to minority audiences.

strandinthewind · #2 01-27-2005, 09:52 PM

I know - she went on O'Reilly and explained that she was hired as a consultant, which she very well may have been - but she "forgot" to mention that in her column PUUHHLLLEEEEZE

to wit:

The Bush Administration Pays Another Journalist

Thursday, January 27, 2005

This is a partial transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," Jan. 26, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Impact" segment tonight, another situation where the Bush administration has paid a journalist. Maggie Gallagher (search) is a columnist, who often writes about family issues. In 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services (search) paid her $21,500 for some consulting work. But Mrs.Gallagher did not tell her readers that. And so she's in a similar position to Armstrong Williams (search), who was paid far more by the Department of Education, as you will remember.

Joining us now from Washington is Dr. Wade Horn, the Assistant Secretary for Children of Families at HHS. And here in the studio is Maggie Gallagher.

All right, now they paid you 21 grand for what? What did you do for the feds?

MAGGIE GALLAGHER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Let me tell you this. Bill, if you'll give me a minute to say, The Washington Post published what I consider an extremely serious charge against me, which is that I took money from the government in order to promote the Bush marriage policies. As far as I'm concerned, that's indefensible if I did that. You know, if you think I did that, then it's...

O'REILLY: Well, I...

GALLAGHER: No, I'm now telling you...

O'REILLY: Yes, I don't think (UNINTELLIGIBLE), I want to know what you did.

GALLAGHER: Right. Well, actually, it's not true.

O'REILLY: OK.

GALLAGHER: What actually happened is that in 2001, I was approached by HHS officials, who told me, Maggie, we don't have anyone here who's got the expertise. You have on the marriage and social science evidence on its importance. Can you do some brochures for our clients on what parents and why marriage matters? Can you write — help us draft an article for Wade Horn's signature on the social science evidence that marriage matters? And can you attend an in-house meeting with our regional managers...

O'REILLY: All right, so you were consulted.

GALLAGHER: ...on the social science effort.

O'REILLY: You were a consultant?

GALLAGHER: But the most important thing is I was paid for specific work progress. I have the invoice. I offered it to "The Washington Post."

O'REILLY: OK, all right.

GALLAGHER: And they were not interested.

O'REILLY: So you were paid to do a job by...

GALLAGHER: I was paid to do research and writing on marriage...

O'REILLY: ...the federal government...

GALLAGHER: ...which is the field of my expertise.

O'REILLY: OK.

GALLAGHER: I'm a marriage expert. You know, some people know me as a syndicated columnist, and I am one. But nine-tenths of the work I've done over the last 20 years is research and public education on the importance of marriage as a social institution.

O'REILLY: All right, here's where you made your mistake.

GALLAGHER: That's what I do.

O'REILLY: And I think you've already admitted the mistake, is that you should have, at some point along the line, told your readers that you were being paid by the government for some work.

GALLAGHER: Yes I think that's right.

O'REILLY: Simple as that.

GALLAGHER: When "The Washington Post" called me up and said — they didn't ask me what they later printed — which is should you promote the marriage policies...

O'REILLY: Don't worry about "The Washington Post."

GALLAGHER: Well, that's what's bouncing around the whole Internet and newspapers.

O'REILLY: OK. So just tell your story to the folks. We don't care about them.

GALLAGHER: What I — what I — when they asked me, should you have disclosed this government contract, I thought about it for 10 minutes after I got off the phone. And I said, Bill, yes.

O'REILLY: Yes.

GALLAGHER: The answer is yes, I should have.

O'REILLY: All journalists have to do that.

GALLAGHER: It had never occurred to me. It's not, in fact...

O'REILLY: Innocent mistake, you say?

GALLAGHER: Well, I mean, I was completely befuddled when I was asked the question because I had never really...

O'REILLY: OK.

GALLAGHER: ...they were completely separate things in my mind. It was a mistake.

O'REILLY: All right, Ms. Gallagher...

GALLAGHER: It will never happen again. That's all I can say.

O'REILLY: We will take your word for it, OK?

GALLAGHER: OK.

O'REILLY: Good.

Now Mr. Horn — Dr. Horn, I've got a bigger problem with you guys up there. You and the Bush administration and the departments shouldn't be hiring active journalists to do work for you because of the conflict of interest appearance, sir. Am I wrong?

WADE HORN, PHD, HHS ASSISTANT SECRETARY: Well, what we did is we hired Maggie Gallagher as a nationally-recognized expert in the field of marriage and marriage education. It was an expertise we didn't have in house. And in fact, what we do when we don't have the expertise in house is we hire consultants in order to build the capacity in house, as well as to help us develop materials.

You know, Barry Brazelton (search) is a pediatrician. —Very famous.— He's known as America's pediatrician. He also happens to write a syndicated column. Under the kind of new standard, which is really kind of new, it would suggest that if the government were interested in doing something around the issue of child health and development, Barry Brazelton's expertise would be barred from being accessible by the federal government.

O'REILLY: OK, but it's not a good policy for the federal government to be paying journalists, people who are practicing journalism, whether they have another profession or not, because of the conflict of interest, it looks bad.

Now my own situation. — I get offered a lot of money by political groups, all the time, to speak to them. And if it is a political group assigned to a party, Democrat or Republican, or libertarian or whatever, I say no. I turn it down. I don't want anything, all right? And if I do do something like that, I'll tell the folks right away. That was Ms. Gallagher's mistake. All she had to do was say, hey, Dr. Horn wanted me to write him up a brochure. I was happy to do it. I was compensated. Then there's no interview here.

But you guys in the Bush administration, this is Armstrong Williams, and now Maggie Gallagher. How many more guys do you have? Do you have any more?

HORN: First of all, I am not an expert on what happened with Armstrong Williams. That was in a different department. But I do think you make a valid point, that it is important for people in government to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.

O'REILLY: Yes, right.

HORN: And the fact of the matter is that we did not ever pay Maggie Gallagher to use her position as a columnist to advance the president's marriage issue.

O'REILLY: OK, and I take your word for that, doctor. But the appearance is no good. I'm going to give Ms. Gallagher the last word here, because I don't want to ruin your reputation. But I think you understand the big picture here.

GALLAGHER: I think...

O'REILLY: Journalism is special. We have special protections. And we have to be up front. Go:

GALLAGHER: Let's say this is a news — I don't disagree with it. I've already said that, you know, if it had ever occurred to me to disclose it, I would have and I should have, and in the future I will.

On the other hand, right now, every day, there are people who write for "The New York Times" and other major newspapers, who do op-ed columns, who are academics, who are scholars, who have done government-funded research.

O'REILLY: OK, if we find that they're in on getting paid by the government...

GALLAGHER: This is a new standard to say any time we do anything for the government, you have to disclose it.

O'REILLY: Good, good...

GALLAGHER: That's all I want to say.

O'REILLY: Just remember, we as journalists, have protections. We have protections that other people don't. We have to be above board. Ms. Gallagher, thanks. Doctor, always a pleasure.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145573,00.html

tynan88 · #3 01-27-2005, 10:17 PM

You know for once I really agreeed with O'Reilly! I saw yesterdays episode and thought, he's changed a bit lol.

Tynan

heyjupiter678 · #4 01-27-2005, 10:27 PM

His column is called "Ethics & Religion"? How funny.

dissention · #5 01-27-2005, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heyjupiter678

"Ethics & Religion"? How funny.

That's right up there with "Christian Scientists" in the oxymoron category.

SuzeQuze · #6 01-27-2005, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynan88

You know for once I really agreeed with O'Reilly! I saw yesterdays episode and thought, he's changed a bit lol.

Tynan

Well, in reading this transcript I was surprised by how much he challenged her seeing she is clearly conservative and supporting the Bush agenda. It almost seemed fair and balanced. Which is why I don't trust it one bit.

I don't think this woman helped her case much by pointing the finger back at Armstrong Williams and saying what he did was really bad and what she did wasn't. But she received 21k which seems almost like a reasonable sum while AW got 250k. Who did he have to sleep with for that?

strandinthewind · #7 01-27-2005, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Well, in reading this transcript I was surprised by how much he challenged her seeing she is clearly conservative and supporting the Bush agenda. It almost seemed fair and balanced. Which is why I don't trust it one bit.

I don't think this woman helped her case much by pointing the finger back at Armstrong Williams and saying what he did was really bad and what she did wasn't. But she received 21k which seems almost like a reasonable sum while AW got 250k. Who did he have to sleep with for that?

O'Reilly hates BS - unless it is his

He is not scared to call people on it. I think in his own twisted hard hat way, he believes in the integrity of journalism and he supports this by letting both sides have it. In the end, I am not really a fan of his anymore and think he is biased. But, I do not think he sees himself that way and his show does demonstrate that to some degree - like this interview.

tynan88 · #8 01-27-2005, 11:08 PM

Quote:

But, I do not think he sees himself that way.

In Outfoxed they talk about someone trying to sue him for libel or defamation and how hard it would be because to do that, you have to convince the court that he was KNOWINGLY lieing to the public, but because he does it so much it makes them harded to catch.

I respect Bill in the sense that he believes in what he believes in and has no problem saying it, however I don't like that he shouts down his opponenents and often doesn't give them a chance. I have a lot of time for people even if they disagree with me, who believe in and will fight for their convictions.

Has something happened to him recently though, ie: a lawsuit or something that has seemingly seen him toned down a bit?

Tynan

dissention · #9 01-27-2005, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynan88

Has something happened to him recently though, ie: a lawsuit or something that has seemingly seen him toned down a bit?

No, he just can't find his favorite loofah.

tynan88 · #10 01-27-2005, 11:11 PM

Have many of you seen outfoxed, it's very interesting, they talk about how a guy who's dad died in the WTC attack went on O'Reilly and he totally attacked him for disrepsecting his father, and how he was begged to leave the studio immediately before O'Reilly could get to him?

Tynan

SuzeQuze · #11 01-27-2005, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynan88

Have many of you seen outfoxed, it's very interesting, they talk about how a guy who's dad died in the WTC attack went on O'Reilly and he totally attacked him for disrepsecting his father, and how he was begged to leave the studio immediately before O'Reilly could get to him?

Tynan

Yes, I saw this and it was disgusting. He called the boy a terrorist because he is liberal and was trying to point out that the Bush administration had made mistakes. O'Reilly screamed at him to SHUT UP, over and over. He made an ass out of himself. The boy was completely civil and just trying to make a point and O'Reilly turned into the devil.

tynan88 · #12 01-27-2005, 11:15 PM

I thought the funniest bit was when O'Reilly said he had only said shutup once and then they showed all clips of him saying it.

Tynan

strandinthewind · #13 01-27-2005, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynan88

In Outfoxed they talk about someone trying to sue him for libel or defamation and how hard it would be because to do that, you have to convince the court that he was KNOWINGLY lieing to the public, but because he does it so much it makes them harded to catch.

I respect Bill in the sense that he believes in what he believes in and has no problem saying it, however I don't like that he shouts down his opponenents and often doesn't give them a chance. I have a lot of time for people even if they disagree with me, who believe in and will fight for their convictions.

Has something happened to him recently though, ie: a lawsuit or something that has seemingly seen him toned down a bit?

Tynan

I agree - and he can be funny and clever. I'd take him anyday over the likes of Hannity who cannot even form an intelligent thought much less a sentence. My big beef with O'Reilly is he does not go after the Bush Admin. with the same zeal he did with the Clinton Admin. He gives W a comparative walk by point out bad things and then glossing over than and making fun of Ted Kennedy. he also hates gay people in that he thinks they should show no affection in public as it offends him. Thus, he is a bigot.

SuzeQuze · #14 01-27-2005, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynan88

I thought the funniest bit was when O'Reilly said he had only said shutup once and then they showed all clips of him saying it.

Tynan

Pointing out his hypocrisy. If only HE would see it.

dissention · #15 01-27-2005, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tynan88

I respect Bill in the sense that he believes in what he believes in and has no problem saying it, however I don't like that he shouts down his opponenents and often doesn't give them a chance. I have a lot of time for people even if they disagree with me, who believe in and will fight for their convictions.

I could never respect a man who presents lies as facts.

He lies and lies and lies and lies and lies and lies and lies and lies and lies.