OpenCDA

October 9, 2012

A Propagandist-in-Chief?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Bill @ 1:24 pm

[

The City of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, has decided it needs to create a super-duper whiz-bang high-cost ($65,000/year)  “communications position to help City Hall share up-to-date, accurate information with the public.”

Embedded in the Coeur d’Alene Press skewspaper article linked above, however, were several indicators that this is just another effort by the Mayor to put high-priced lipstick on the City’s propaganda pig. 

Look at that part of the article’s lede included in the linked quote above.  “… share up-to-date, accurate information with the public.”  Sharing timely, accurate information sounds laudable until you realize there’s one adjective missing:  complete.

Timely information can be facially accurate yet still be misleading because not all the information has been presented.   For example, in promoting the City’s proposed acquisition of five miles of Coeur d’Alene Lake Drive, the City’s Chief Streetsweeper said the five mile stretch of road would cost about $13,000 annually to maintain.  His definition of maintenance was annual striping and snow plowing, but he failed to include many other costly factors to maintain the road.  There is much more to maintenance than striping and plowing.  His definition was timely and accurate, but it was incomplete.

Describing the already-selected person to be the City’s Propagandist-in-Chief, titular City Administrator Wendy Gabriel said, “The fact that she  is not tied to any other agency or business, so she comes in neutral and fresh” was a draw.'”  Neutral?  She will work for Coeur d’Alene City Hall — not the people in the City!  She will spit out whatever the City government tells her to spit out, because if she doesn’t, she will be fired.   Does anyone really believe that the Bloemster will give this City employee the freedom to provide accurate, complete, and timely information?

According to the skewspaper article, “One of the goals of the position is to prevent misinformation from circulating around the community when city projects are happening.” [emphasis mine]   There’s only one way to prevent information from being circulated:  Prior restraint.  Censorship.   The best the City’s Propagandist-in-Chief can hope to accomplish will be to try and refute whatever information the City government wants the public to believe is inaccurate.  The best way to do that is to provide timely, accurate, and complete information.   Hiring a Propagandist-in-Chief for $65,000 per year is an admission by the Mayor and her minions that they have been unable or unwilling to provide timely, accurate, and complete information.   It is completely unreasonable to believe that this person will be given the authority and autonomy to provide any information that has not been carefully filtered and spun by City Hall.

When the City Council passed the current City budget (4-3, Mayor breaking the tie), the Mayor said, “We need to sell our product every single day.”  No, the Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Association, and the civic and professional organizations that want to promote the City are the ones who need to be attracting commerce and industry to the City.  The City government’s role is to administer and provide city services that create an environment in which those private entitles can promote the City and in which residents and visitors can live safely.  The City doesn’t need a Propagandist-in-Chief if the City is limiting itself to doing its job in the public view rather than behind closed doors.

 

4 Comments

  1. 65,000 more reasons to vote the ‘4’ out of office. However, it may be worth it if that is what it takes to get the Cda Press to stop putting Kennedy’s picture in the paper every time someone mows the lawn. Yep, second thought…pay her $75,000!

    Comment by up river — October 10, 2012 @ 7:34 am

  2. up river,

    If Bloem, Kennedy, McEvers, Goodlander, and Gabriel were committed to the dissemination of accurate, complete, and timely information, they would do it themselves or at the very least require their department heads to do it. An absence of commitment to honesty from the top will not be overcome by having the same disinformation mouthed by a new voice.

    Comment by Bill — October 10, 2012 @ 8:17 am

  3. If I was an applicant for that position I would view it as a temporary transition job as it will most likely last only through November 2013.

    Comment by Ancientemplar — October 11, 2012 @ 7:42 am

  4. Would the new Propagandist-in-Chief have told the public the complete story about the proposed land swap in the apparently now-defunct Silver Beach Boat Ramp deal? Or would we have simply got the same old story spit out from different lips?

    Comment by Bill — October 11, 2012 @ 12:57 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved