Why Is Pro-Bush PR "Propaganda?"
Rosa DeLaura (D-CT) has introduced the Federal Propaganda Prohibition Act of 2005, citing Armstrong Williams' and Maggie Gallagher's shenanigans as her motivation.
There's no room for non-disclosure in PR, especially when public funds are involved, but the name of DeLaura's bill troubles me. Propaganda is, on its face, not the full truth. It's not about non-disclosure, it's about false information being trumped as true information.
An example: The old Soviet newspaper ran a headline in its sports section, "Soviets Second, US Next To Last." Trouble was, there were only two teams in the competition. If DeLaura wants to ban that sort of misrepresentation, great. But that's not what she's up to.
DeLaura's grandstanding on a couple GOP cases (Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher) to score some points, and is threatening necessary info dissemination in the process. A lot of policy is PR'able and no Congressional restrictions -- other than proper disclosure -- should be applied. It's our government's policy to reduce drug use, for example. No one but a few Libertarians and far-lefties has a problem with spending PR money to help save kids from drugs.
Other policies -- like Clinton's Hilliarycare, or his policies supporting abortion -- had a lot of opponents, as do Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives. I don't believe public funds should be used to promote either party's policies, but once they become law, as long as there's proper disclosure, PR is a good tool, as it is often more cost-effective than advertising.
All in all, DeLaura's bill reminds me of Sen. Boxer's railing against the vote tally in Ohio -- only allegations of Republican misdeeds are worth citing; ignore proven Dem misdeeds at all cost. I doubt if her bill even gets out of committee, but it's already done what she wanted -- it got her some PR.
There's no room for non-disclosure in PR, especially when public funds are involved, but the name of DeLaura's bill troubles me. Propaganda is, on its face, not the full truth. It's not about non-disclosure, it's about false information being trumped as true information.
An example: The old Soviet newspaper ran a headline in its sports section, "Soviets Second, US Next To Last." Trouble was, there were only two teams in the competition. If DeLaura wants to ban that sort of misrepresentation, great. But that's not what she's up to.
DeLaura's grandstanding on a couple GOP cases (Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher) to score some points, and is threatening necessary info dissemination in the process. A lot of policy is PR'able and no Congressional restrictions -- other than proper disclosure -- should be applied. It's our government's policy to reduce drug use, for example. No one but a few Libertarians and far-lefties has a problem with spending PR money to help save kids from drugs.
Other policies -- like Clinton's Hilliarycare, or his policies supporting abortion -- had a lot of opponents, as do Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives. I don't believe public funds should be used to promote either party's policies, but once they become law, as long as there's proper disclosure, PR is a good tool, as it is often more cost-effective than advertising.
All in all, DeLaura's bill reminds me of Sen. Boxer's railing against the vote tally in Ohio -- only allegations of Republican misdeeds are worth citing; ignore proven Dem misdeeds at all cost. I doubt if her bill even gets out of committee, but it's already done what she wanted -- it got her some PR.
posted by Laer at 4:49 PM
<< Home