Federal auditors said last week that the Bush administration broke the law while attempting to promote the president's education policy. The violations included purchasing favorable news coverage, making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and hiring a public relations company to evaluate media perceptions of the Republican Party. Those strategies employed by the Bush administration to bolster praise for its policies are reprehensible and it is unfortunate they continued unabated for as long as they did. It is a relief that those actions, compromising the integrity of both the government and the complicit media, were found illegal.
The arrangement with Williams and some details of the public relations campaign have been public knowledge for several months, but the recent investigation launched by the Government Accountability Office has finally confirmed the illegality of such ploys. The GAO, an independent and nonpartisan arm of Congress, declared that in implementing its strategies, the administration improperly used allocated funds in an effort to pursue an entirely partisan agenda. Those actions are irresponsible and corrupt.
Some examples of the administration's efforts to promote its policies help reveal the true depth of their absurdity. In one instance, the Education Department actually commissioned a nationally syndicated newspaper article to praise its role in promoting science education. In another, the department distributed a prepackaged video news release giving the president's program for remedial instruction and tutoring for children an A-plus. It is disturbing that the actions are not those of a dictatorial regime, but the United States government. The administration should work to properly fund and improve its education policies and not try to mask failures by purchasing media praise.
The worst aspect of this debacle is that if the government had merely acknowledged its contributions to the materials in question, their dissemination would have been legal. However, the administration failed to do even that much. It is not the materials themselves, but their lack of attribution that justifiably angered the accountability office. The news articles and broadcasts engineered by the government were purposely designed to appear as though they were products of independent news agencies. An unfair side effect is that it could lead to less trust in the media, who are partially to blame for their willingness to comply with this charade. Overall, it is a sad instance of an ethical breakdown for both the government and the media-vital institutions from which far better should be expected.
17 Archives
