Talk:Bush administration payment of columnists

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Distinctions

I think some distinctions need to be made on the exact nature of the payments. It appears Armstrong Williams is a much different case, being both a large sum of money ($240,000) and an actual quid pro quo. The other are more along the lines of "possible conflict of interest"—they weren't paid for their columns like Williams was, but they did receive payment for other services rendered while also writing positive columns, and are accused of being influenced by the payments. --Delirium 10:44, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Title change?

Does anyone else think "Bush administration payment to columnists" would be clearer? GuloGuloGulo 19:00, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Lemme word this in the most polite way possible. As we all know, many people, including Wikipedia editors, do not like Bush. But is this "payment to columnists" matter a "scandal?" Does it deserve to be described on the front page no less as one and listed on "Political Scandals?" Given alleged Democratic superiority in analysis, perhaps a little more even-handedness would be helpful. Thanks. 221.25.208.156 11:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't recall any time in history when payment of taxpayer money (other than campaign checkoff) was diverted to support political position directly through payments to the media. Party money, PAC money, yes -- government funds, no. I think it is an outrage regardless of the position supported or the president in power. --Pmeisel 13:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer it if the description read "A third media commentator is revealed to have accepted public funds from the Bush administration".-Ashley Pomeroy 17:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for whether the story is a scandal or not, that depends on how you define the word 'scandal'. An issue, any issue becomes a scandal when the media treat it as a scandal - a hideous outrage would not be an outrage if there wasn't any actual outrage, and conversely the most trivial, meaningless non-issue becomes a scandal if it makes the front page. Compare, for example, the blast of fury that greeted Janet Jackson's floppy breast with the almost absolute media silence on (insert your own favourite ignored topic here). 'Scandal' is really too strong and ill-defined to be in an encyclopaedia, certainly not on the front page. Perhaps it could be written as ""News of a third media commentator's acceptance of public funds arouses scandal in the media". Whether this is a substantial political scandal is something for the blogs to pour over in the fortnight it will take to die down. Does Wikipedia's front page have to have a ratio of foreign / domestic news stories? -Ashley Pomeroy 18:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Foreign"? "Domestic"? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia is oriented toward a particular country? If so, which country would that be? — Nowhither 08:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no bias in this article. The fact that "many people do not like Bush" is not much of a reason to set up an NPOV dispute on an obvious scandal. I concur with Pmeisel's comments above, and frankly, calling this whole ordeal a "scandal" is letting it off lightly. I believe that calling it a scandal has more to do with the events and less with the person, and no one would hesitate to call it a scandal if it were Clinton or any democrat. since it's been well over a year that this article has been tagged, i am removing the NPOV tag. Strawberryfire 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV part two

This really only presents one side of this. In the case of Maggie Gallagher, for instance, she wasn't paid to promote policies through her columns (like Armstrong apparently was), she was paid as an academic to draft materials for the Dept. of Human Services. She is known as an academic studying marriage issues. As a comparison, I write a column in a newspaper but my full-time job is with a state university. It does not follow that my columns, when they do line up with a policy of the state administration, are written because I get a state paycheck. I don't have time to revise now, but if no one is around by the time I wander back, I'll take care of it. -- Jbamb 05:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that she promoted "Bush's marriage initiative, which redirected welfare funds, previously used to reward states for lowering out-of-wedlock child birth rates, to pay for premarital counseling and abstinence education" is scandalous in of itself. It's a marriage initiative based on faith not on evidence of efficacy, and that has no role in academia. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]