The press isn't free...it's $240,000

I've been delaying posting on the Armstrong Williams/Department of Education story for a while, mostly because I couldn't quite figure out how to frame what troubled me most about the story. As all good procrastinators know, it pays off about ten percent of the time--and this was one of them, since George Will helped me put my jumbled thoughts together with this excellent piece in the Washington Post earlier this week.

I fear that, like me, other liberals are so angry with the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress that we express equal outrage over every wrong, whether small or large. To much of the country, we're the boy who cried wolf--and when our ire comes bubbling to the surface with such ease, we risk confusing merely offensive stories with those that are truly dangerous not just to our citizens, but to the United States of America itself. One story line that falls into the second category is the abuse of detainees as part of the war against terrorism. The Armstrong Williams story (and its counterparts) is another.

I've always put George Will into the category of Smart Republicans I Always Listen To (along with Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and my friend Trish), even if I rarely agree with him and often find myself agitated at his premise. But when I realize that not only do we agree on something, but we share the same reasoning, I figure it's worth sitting up and taking notice. In this case, Will said

Obviously government leaders must try to lead by persuading the public. But government by the consent of the governed should not mean government by consent produced by government propaganda. Unfortunately, as government's pretensions grow, so does its sense that its glorious ends justify even the tackiest means.

And there it is--the heart of my problem with the government paying commentators, or making fake newscasts from the Drug Czar's office, or hiring PR firms. Most stories I've read have either focused on 'journalistic ethics' (gasp! Armstrong Williams is a schill for the Administration!) or inappropriate use of education dollars ($240K would fund about 60 Pell Grants). But that's the small part of the story, the low-hanging fruit.

The real problem is that our government should be reporting to us, not trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Our ability to govern ourselves, already in some peril, rests in large part on the transparency of the government. Every politician, no matter the political party, tries to get favorable media coverage through a variety of strategies; every agency issues press releases and arranges photo ops or events designed to garner favorable coverage. But this is the difference between an employee presenting information to her boss in the best light possible, and an employee deliberately hiding some information the boss might not like. In this case, and in many other instances, government officials are abusing their positions to manipulate the very information we use for decision-making. Don't focus too hard on Williams; a conservative commentator taking money to say things he probably would have said anyway is not the scariest part (although it's a little scary). The scariest part is the idea that someone (or maybe many someones) is working behind the scenes to make sure we hear exactly, and only, the story he wants us to hear--and then, loudly and boldly claiming a mandate because we've consented to something we don't understand. Our system of self-government, under those conditions, is broken.