Reuters …
At least 10 Florida journalists received regular payments from a U.S. government program aimed at undermining the Cuban government of Fidel Castro, The Miami Herald reported on Friday.
Total payments since 2001 ranged from $1,550 to $174,753 per journalist, according to the newspaper, which said it found no instance in which those involved had disclosed that they were being paid by the U.S. Office of Cuba Broadcasting.
That office runs Radio and TV Marti, U.S. government programs broadcast to Cuba to promote democracy and freedom on the communist island. Its programming cannot be broadcast within the United States because of anti-propaganda laws.
The Cuban government has long contended that some Spanish-language journalists in Miami were on the U.S. government payroll.
The Herald said two of the journalists receiving the payments worked for its Spanish-language sister publication, El Nuevo Herald, and a third was a freelance contributor for that newspaper, which fired all three after learning of the payments.
Embarrassed for your country yet?
Given that there’s been essentially no congressional oversight in six years and way more than six years worth of wrongdoing have occured, there’s no shortage of things to investigate. But following up on the piece about the US government, under President Bush, paying US-based reporters to write anti-Castro copy, this is one investigation I’m really eager to see: a full and detailed catalog of which journalists the US government has had on the take during the last six years.
In a way what’s most telling is that it doesn’t even appear to be part of one program. I doubt very much that the same bureaucrats and appointees were paying these anti-Castro guys as were paying Armstrong Williams to yap about No Child Left Behind. Or Maggie Gallagher about pre-marital sex, or whatever it was they paid her to do.
It’s like a culture of propaganda that has suffused the whole administration. And the specific instances we’ve found out about all appear to have been revealed by specific investigations or random squealers. And that suggests that once subpoenas get handed out, we’ll find out about a lot more.
ABC considering pulling the plug on the 9/11 hackudrama altogether?
Steven Clemons hears that the Bolton nomination is “dead.”
Top historians write ABC, tell them to do the right thing, yank the pseudo-doc.
Sounds like this is about to get considerably worse for ABC. First report coming shortly over at TPMmuckraker.com.
Director of 9/11 ABC doc tied to evangelical group trying to “impact and transform Hollywood from the inside out” with godly film makers.
As many of you have noticed, TPM Reader DK has been guest blogging on weekends here at TPM recently. I’m happy to say that this anonymous individual seems to have developed quite a following. But some readers, I think understandably, have asked, who is he or she? And why does this person’s identity have to kept a secret?
Donna Karan? Don King?
Since transparency and truth in advertising are a lot of what good blogging is about, we’ve even had a few people say I shouldn’t have an anonymous blogger guest host here at TPM.
Let me try to address this.
And let me start by telling you a bit about who DK isn’t. DK is not someone in politics. Not someone who works for the government. And not someone who works in the media. A lot of the concern with someone who’s anonymous, I think, is that their identity would show some unrevealed agenda in their writing. The truth behind DK’s anonymity is a bit more mundane. DK is a lawyer at a law firm in the midwest. And, simply stated, DK’s professional position as a firm lawyer isn’t compatible with their free and frank exposition of views and analysis of the issues of the day here at TPM.
DK has been a regular reader of TPM for a long time. And I got to know DK as one of the many amateur (in the best sense of the word) researcher/tipsters who help me put TPM together by finding articles I should be looking at, searching the net for more information about the stories of the day, etc.
I understand the concerns about anonymity. And I respect them. All things being equal, I’d prefer DK write under his/her own name. But I understand their need to remain anonymous, at least for now. And I think, on balance, the voice and point of view DK brings to our virtual pages outweighs the downside of anonymity.