The Quiet Conservative May 30, 2008
Advertising in the KC Star
Opening up the Kansas City Star paper yesterday it was interesting to find the top story on the
front page- top of the fold under the banner- wasn't news at all. It was a book advertisement. That
seemed unusual for a newspaper. Most papers lead off with stories that are either national in scope,
or important on the local scene. Instead the ad read “Insider Faults Run-Up to War.” It was an ad
to promote Scott McClellan’s new book “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and
Washington’s Culture of Deception.” Buying ad space on the top of the front page where the top
story usually goes must have been really expensive for the publisher.
Running under the banner where five bullet points you could have read in advertisements in other
papers from the Washington Post to the Lawrence Journal World. The reason you could have read
the same points is because no one at the Star actually wrote the story. After all, you sell ad space in
the paper, you don’t write the ads. The bullet points are condensed and paraphrased as follows:
1. President Bush used “aggressive propaganda” to push the war that “was not necessary” and “a
grave mistake.”
2. Bush made sure that war was the only option, “a decision to turn away from candor and honesty
when those qualities were most needed.”
3. McClellan is a victim. He was duped.
4. President Bush is still a good guy but his advisors sucked.
5. The White House response: “Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the
White House…It is sad- this is not the Scott we knew,” said Dana Perino, the current press
secretary.”
If you didn't buy the paper or didn't read the ‘story’ that is what you come away with- the
publisher talking points to promote the book. The rest of the book ad runs on page four. The copy
writers for the ad were Don Eggen of the Washington Post and Jennifer Loven of the AP. The
paper didn't say for which ad agency they were moonlighting for. The Kansas City Star can be
forgiven for not vetting this ad. After all, they are only responsible for vetting news (See Fake News
in the KC Star).
If you were to vet the bullet points for accuracy, just on a whim, you might think to raise a
question or two about the accuracy of the advertiser. For example:
1. Bush used aggressive propaganda to promote an unnecessary and mistaken war. This
might seem reasonable to anyone who cannot fact check the dreck coming from the far left media.
But to anyone who has a computer and can Google, the war was long overdue. After 9/11 state
sponsors of terrorism could no longer be ignored by an executive branch that had wiled away eight
years of preparedness and action on a slightly plump, impressionable intern.
From the first World Trade Center Attack, the African Embassy bombings, the Somalia disaster,
the assassination plot on President Bush 41 and the Kuwaiti Emir, the Cole bombing, twelve years of
Hussein defying UN weapons inspectors attempting to verify his disarmament of weapons of mass
destruction, the firing on US warplanes patrolling the no fly zone, and finally the sponsoring of
terrorism up to and including payouts of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, it
was time to act. The war ended in 1991 with a cease fire after all. That cease fire had been
constantly violated for twelve years!
2. Bush pushed the war. All Hussein had to do was allow the inspectors back in. Then….no war.
That’s right folks, Hussein controlled the start of the war, not the White House. When he refused to
allow the inspectors in, Bush gave another final ultimatum after the deadline expired. If Hussein and
his sons left Iraq, then there would be no war. Once again the ball was in Hussein’s court, not in the
White House. As for the lack of candor and honesty, not one person has proven a lie by President
Bush. There isn't a thing pushed on Iraq by the Bush White House that wasn't exactly the same as
pushed by the Clinton White House. Former CIA Director George Tenet recently said the exact
same thing. He stated to the press what he had told the Bush White House was the same intelligence
he had told the Clinton White House concerning Iraqi WMD’s. The difference was, the Republican
President acted to ensure the safety of the US. The Democratic President just acted. If you still
don't believe this, then ask yourself a few basic questions. Why were there sanctions against Iraq for
twelve years? International sanctions? UN sanctions? What were the inspectors supposed to do?
The world believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. His own generals
believed he had weapons of mass destruction. He wanted people to believe he had weapons of mass
destruction. The falsehood being spread that people knew he didn’t, is just a falsehood. This is the
lie told most often by the press and now the one most believed by the people. This is the power of
propaganda instead of journalism.
3. McClellan was the victim. This is a point to be touched on lightly. It wouldn't be fair to judge
McClellan’s character based on the ad copy put out by the publisher and parroted by the ad agency.
Only the left can make weakness and lack of character a virtue. Here they portray him as a saint.
The book, it is to be hoped, dispels this. Otherwise McClellan is a man without scruples.
4. McClellan likes Bush. It seems Scott has odd tastes. If you believe a man lies to involve
America in a war that kills thousands, why would you like him? It seems an odd statement.
Something like, “I knew he was a serial killer but I liked bowling with him on Tuesdays.” It just
doesn't ring true. This point seems to contradict the rest of the points put forward. Did anyone
notice?
5. The White House responded with an innocuous statement. What could they say? They have
seen similar garbage and the resultant feeding frenzy from the left before. If they express outrage the
press takes the book to be true. If they do not express outrage the press takes the book to be true.
The press wants it to be true.
The Kansas City Star might be completely forgiven for not vetting the advertisements they put in
the paper. Although, to be totally above board they should have made clear their front page section
was now ad space. However, if they put the book ad on as news…then it looks like they were either
lazy or grossly incompetent in not asking some basic questions.
By the afternoon of the 28th there were already signs that this book might not be the “Ultimate
Insider!” book it was being advertised to be. On the Radio Factor in the afternoon Ari Fleischer told
Bill O’Reilly that he had an ongoing relationship with McClellan and the two had talked about the
book over the last year. McClellan had told Fleischer that the book was very positive about the
president. However, in the last couple of months a new editor had gone over the book and they
were reworking parts of the book. The book now is coming out as an apparent anti-Bush book. So
why the change? What made Scott do a complete turn around on his former boss? Was it the
editor? Who was the editor?
If the Star was going to publish news instead of ads it might have been important to wonder this
very point before splashing the ad across the top of the front page. The blogs were reporting on this
very question by early evening on the 28th. Little Green Footballs (Of the Dan Rather fake but
accurate forged memos) reported the book was edited by Peter Osnos. Mr. Osnos is the editor at
large of Public Affairs Books. Public Affairs Books is owned by the Perseus Funds Group. The
board of the funds group are far left liberals and the funds are controlled by….George Soros! The
very same billionaire who funds almost all the far left socialist fringe groups! Maybe, just maybe,
that would explain how a former Bush staffer who wrote a pro Bush book would suddenly rework it
to be a hit piece and then get the title wave of free ad space and glowing reviews from the far left. If
there were only people working at the Star other than the advertising department folks.
But it seems like there were a lot of advertisers in charge of papers nationwide. Where were the
reporters? Where were the people with a shred of integrity that saw this and smelled something
rotten? It would take only one honest person to dig in and find out the difference between an ad and
a story. Find the original manuscript. Then compare it with the manuscript that the editor
‘reworked’ into the final form. Find out what strings were pulled and whether Scott McClellan is an
honest man with an insider’s tell-all book, or a weak man who stabbed his former employer in the
back on the bidding of far left forces trying to influence the next presidential election. THAT would
be a news story, not an ad.
Online in the Washington Post on May 30th, Dan Eggan, back from his part time ad job along
with someone named Linton Weeks, started to hit the peripherals on some of these very same
questions. The story hints at the change. "…one publishing industry insider described his early
concept as "a not-very-interesting typical press secretary book." The article doesn't so much as ask
the questions as seem try and take away some of the heat the book was receiving. The question
becomes then, was the pro Bush book so boring and pro Bush, no liberal publisher wanted to take it?
Or, more importantly, pay for it?
The Post had the following, "Osnos said McClellan just needed editorial guidance to tell the story
he wanted to tell all along." and "First we had to ascertain what kind of book he wanted to write,"
said Osnos, a former reporter and editor. "We are journalists, independent-minded publishers. We
weren't interested in a book that was just a defense of the Bush administration. It had to pass
our test of independence, integrity and candor." The article, titled "McClellan Says Book's Tone
Evolved" is up on the Washington Post web site. It seems Mr. Osnos wasn't interested in publishing
the pro Bush book and his standard of integrity, independence, and candor was to rewrite the book
so it agreed with his negative views of President Bush. Otherwise Scott wasn't getting his book
published. Not an important nugget of information for a book ad, but a mighty big nugget for a news
story.
As for the Star on the 29th, there might be one guy who still had integrity, he was David Klepper.
He wrote a small story on page B2 about the dinner hosted at the Governor’s mansion for the
abortion doctor, Dr. Tiller, and his staff. Dr. Tiller is the biggest financial supporter of the Kansas
Democratic Governor and Dr. Tiller does most of his funding through cut outs and PAC donations.
He is also under criminal investigation for illegal abortions. This wasn't as interesting a story to the
advertisement department as the book ad. This was a news story about possible corruption at the
highest levels of state government. You can guess at the questions the dinner would raise to an
honest reporter. Did Tiller pay off the Governor? Did the Governor lie about the dinner for her
biggest contributor? Was the supposed auction by the group who gives money to pro abortion
politicians an easy way to donate money, in plain sight, by the state’s most notorious abortionist?
All the facts aren't known yet. It would be good to think Mr. Klepper is digging into the story and
wasn't at the Star when the ad department ran wild putting book ads on the front page while his story
ran on B2.
Meanwhile the Star followed up on the 30th with stories about carbon emissions and the efforts to
be green. It's nice to see they give some time to a pagan earth religion along with ad space sales in
the paper. Oh, by the way, President Bush was in town for a fund raiser.
There was a great story from Dave Helling on the front of the local section explaining his
boredom, "Call it boring" in following the president around and not asking him about the book, Iraq,
and gas prices. (Let’s see, the book story we’re ignoring. Iraq we are winning so we aren't
interested in it anymore at the paper, and gas prices are the result of the Democrats in Congress. We
try and bury that. What would he ask Bush about?) Frankly Mr. Helling wrote about how much he
didn't like his assignment and how he wasn't going to put any effort into it.
Reading it over you got the sense of all the stories he missed by being flat out lazy. He missed
stories about how much effort it took to move the president. He missed about how much advance
time it took to plan presidential trips. He missed how local resources were used. He missed any story
about Air Force One or the people on board. He missed stories about the Secret Service. He missed
stories about people who met the president. He missed stories about the National Guard. He missed
stories on just about everything involving the President of the United States and his trip to the state
of Kansas. To be brutally objective, the column was one long phoned in lazy exposition about how
little he cared to do a professional job.
As for news in the Star, if there are no further stories about the book transformation, or the
Governor's dinner, (just like there were a dearth of stories about all the other connections between
Tiller and the state government), we can just go back to perusing the book ads on the front page or
checking to see what stories the reporters aren't doing. They will have nothing else to offer at the
KC Star.