According to blogger Stacy Harp, who says she received an e-mail from Michael McManus’s son, the government funds in question went to his non-profit organization and not to him personally:
After checking our records, HHS paid a total of $10,199.98 to Marriage Savers, Inc for making six presentation (including travel expenses). We were also were awarded a federal grant of $48,993 (via a competitive bidding process) in a “capacity-expanding grant” to adapt our materials to serve unwed couples having babies out of wedlock. These funds came to Marriage Savers Inc. not to me personally. They are only 2.7% of the $2.1 million we have raised, mostly from churches, foundations and individuals….In addition to my work as President of Marriage Savers I write and self-syndicate a column, Ethics & Religion, to about 35 newspapers. There is no connection between my column and the federal funds awarded Marriage Savers.
It’s a fine line. I still think he should have noted this in the tagline at the end of his columns:
Michael McManus is the president of Marriage Savers, a non-profit organization that receives federal grants.
Or something like that. There are other columnists who run non-profit organizations, and they apply for and receive money from the government. I know of at least one. Should they speak up now? If they don’t, the information will “leak” out, and people will assume wrongdoing where there is none.
(Hat tip: MediaSoul)
{ 10 comments }
I’m sorry La Shawn, but I beg to disagree. Us regular readers know well your position on illegal immigration.
Let’s say that with the turnover at the DHS, management is kicking around policy. They already know the data and studies that informs Bush, but they want to see what else is out there.
One of them is a lurker on your and Michelle’s blog and gets the bright idea to propose bringing you two to make a presentation. So they contact you two and ya’ll agree to put together a briefing and present it. So you fire up powepoint, load it with stats, facts and all the juicy examples of bureacratic ineptitude and/or short-sightedness.
Jump forward, the presentation is well received and believe it or not, they now see the issue in a new light and begin plans to win over Bush, persuade congress that our first priority is to clamp down on the borders.
Meanwhile you go back to blogging about your pet peeve. I hardly think that ethics require you to mention from now on that you once counseled the suits over at DHS. If anything, some may take it as tooting your horn.
Payment for access to your research is hardly payola. In fact, to me at least, it would only validate the fact that you have something worth saying. And that finally, someone with the authority to make the changes that you’ve been crying for, is paying attention, both literally and figuratively.
This in no way makes you a shill. You are instead a consultant and helping to guide them in making policy. That is a far cry from being paid to promote your customer’s agenda in your writings.
I’ll say it again, in this case, when La Shawn and Michelle speak, decision makers listen (apologies to E.F. hutton). No disclaimers needed, though if you feel the need to do so, so be it — to each his own.
Do you see the distinction I’m trying to make? In the case of Williams, although he was in the frontlines of education reform, he was being paid to promote policy from the top down. On the other hand, Gallagher & McManus were helping to shape/inform policy. To me, that’s a difference. Yeah Williams should’ve disclaimed, but when it’s all said and done, no big deal for the average Joe public.
Put it another way, would you be compelled to disclaim, if the big cheese at DHS lurks on your blogs and decided to take your advice wholesale and monitors your blog to fine-tune the policy based on what you write — all w/o ever revealing themselves, let alone pay you?
I see your point, Andy, but if I were to consult with DHS, I would definitely disclose that fact. Being paid by a private company is different. But these things become delicate when you’re getting government contracts, especially for programs promoting “moral values” in the middle of this highly partisan divide we have in America. People will take something innocuous and run with it. I’d rather diffuse the bomb or dismantle it before it goes off.
And YES, if DHS is using my stuff, they’d better pay me.
And I see your point that you’d want to do it for the purpose of defanging the moonbats.
By the same token, Maggie has been researching and writing about marriage issues for a good 10 years. In 2002, she’s contracted to write brochures for the government to explain why marriage is a viable option to be distributed to Dept. of Health customers.
In any case, more than likely, there’s a blurb at the bottom about the author and credentials. This is typical of any publication put out by the government. Shouldn’t that be sufficient to qualify as a disclaimer?
I’m curious, after what length of time, does a writer no longer need to disclaim something they did X # of years ago?
After all, some writers are so prolific and profitable, to cite each and every contract, their disclaimers would have to run several pages, just so they can write a column & opine without being accused of being on the take.
Also, consider this that when a writer writes for the government, that product with rare exception becomes the property of the government & by extension, the public and the public domain. IOW, no copywrite. ;(
That means anyone can take such publications and reprint to their heart’s content and without accrediting it to the original author if they so wish to. They could even aspire to claim authorship w/o legal repercussion, the only downside being that they’d be found out and discredited.
But I agree, the government had better pay you if they knew what was good for them.
You are right La Shawn. A writer may no longer be independent, as the column reader expects when reading they’re words, once they accept significant funds from sources other than the newspapers paying for the colunm itself. ‘Especially’ if it is from the government.
I believe, since McManus was an outspoken pro-marriage advocate before the gov’t funds, his column did not need to be biased by the gov’t funds. But the key is disclosure so the reader, not the writer of course, can decide.
The attempt to separate his column and non-profit incomes is a non-starter. He receives an income from both. Who thinks the HHS funds would not have gone to pay his salary if no others were coming in at the time.
This whole conservative pundit payola thing is becoming a big witch hunt.
IMO, Armstrong Williams is the only one to have made a mistake.
The biggest mistake of all was forgetting that the standards that pundits, columnists and journalists are applied diffently dependent on your politics.
Since the federal grant to his non-profit were only 2.7% of his funding, isn’t your recommended tagline for him distorted?
Heck, I’m in the midst of paying off federal subsidy student loans. Should I disclose that each time I write something in praise of the federal government?
Should all “public” writers (bloggers/columnists/pundits) make their 1040’s public record?
How does that advance the free flow of information?
Man! Andy had me going with that immigration thing until I realized it was only an example.
I would compare it to the mail we get from our representatives which typically states something like the following: No public monies were used in the production of this mailing.
Perhaps a disclaimer like this should appear somewhere or in the case of Williams at the end of his show: “research funded in part by a grant from the federal/state/county/city government”.
Stories like this have a way of growing legs and developing a life of their own.
Allan, I’ll go along with that.
Another thot occurred to me. Anyone can have their own website/blog or what have you. So, maybe what writers ought to do is load all of their past and current activities that could be construed as conflict of interests into a webpage. And as long as they keep it up to date, they don’t need to worry about tagging each article with disclaimers. If you, as the reader, need to know, then go to their website and click on “ABOUT | DISCLAIMERS”.
For those who don’t have web prescence, there’s no excuse for not getting aboard the Internet train.
That would instantly disqualify me
Comments on this entry are closed.