It seems to me your obvious political bias prevented you from writing a wider-ranging piece on government-funded advertising today, and instead we get another liberal rehashing of the Armstrong Williams story. First, it's not the government with the ethical duty to keep their political motivations separate from their commitment to objectivity: it's the media, and Williams and any other govt-paid columnists are solely at fault here for violating their profession's unwritten rules. The Bush admin is free to offer cash to anyone to push their policy; it's up the ethical journalist to refuse that cash. Our government pays billions of dollars each year to advertise to us, and that should outrage you more than a one-time payment to an obscure columnist (I know who Williams is, but most people don't). Think about the presumption and arrogance of our government to take our tax dollars, then turn around and TELL US not to smoke (Stand) or use drugs (USNDPC). Isn't that also propaganda (to which you are so opposed)? And since Webster doesn't require governmental backing in defining 'propaganda', isn't your column too?
Ignore the dumb arguments (the gov can be as dirty as they want, it's up to the media not to take their money) and just notice the fact that he disagrees. Like, this is okay? People taking money without disclosing their ties to the administration? Really?
Well, anyways, turns out I wasn't the only one who thought that it was propaganda (hint, a federal agency thought so too).