Sold! Conservative broadcaster paid to push Bush A new scandal of yet-untold effect is unfolding as details come to light that conservative broadcaster and columnist Armstrong Williams received $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote the "No Child Left Behind" policy on his television and radio shows. Additionally, a newspaper industry journal also notes that Williams wrote about the education-reform law at least four times in 2004. The issue has provoked outrage across the political spectrum; Williams reportedly walked out of MSNBC's Scarborough Country after host Joe Scarborough opened the show with blistering criticism of the paid punditry. Tribune Media Services also announced the termination of its contract with Mr. Williams, effective immediately, although he intends to continue his feature through self-syndication. In harsh terms, TMS explained its position and cited Williams' failure to notify the company of a potential conflict of interest; according to the text of a company statement carried at the website for Editor and Publisher: The industry journal also reports that Williams wrote about the NCLB Act four times last year between January and May, and also wrote about the Bush administration's education-reform policy in October, though he did not specifically mention NCLB. The New York Times reports that for the Department of Education's part, a statement asserted, "The contract paid to provide the straightforward distribution of information about the department's mission and N.C.L.B. - a permissible use of taxpayer funds." Additionally, the Times notes that the disclosure of Williams' arrangement with the government coincides with a decision by the Government Accounting Office that the Bush administration had violated a law against unauthorized propaganda by distributing television news segments promoting drug enforcement and Medicare policies. A UPI wire story carried at the Washington Times' website suggests that Williams was also to attempt to persuade other black journalists to praise the Act, as well. Democrats are sounding like Democrats, and I'm anxiously awaiting the transcript of tonight's Scarborough Country, in which the political right seems to be piling it on as well. Conservative journalists, at least, wish to distance themselves from this scandal as much as possible. ______________________ Notes: Kirkpatrick, David D. "TV Host Says U.S. Paid Him to Back Policy". NYTimes.com, January 8, 2005. See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/08/national/08education.html Astor, Dave. "Another Problem for Commentator Who Took Bush Money?" EditorandPublisher.com, January 7, 2005. See http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000748602 Astor, Dave. "Armstrong Williams Column Axed by TMS". EditorandPublisher.com, January 7, 2005. See http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000749251 United Press International. "Black right-winger paid to push policy". WashingtonTimes.com, January 7, 2005. See http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050107-111623-8729r.htm
Should we focus just on the journalist? Or should we also examine the Republican administration using taxpayer money to pay for "independent" propaganda on their political agenda. A commercial is one thing...an opinion piece is another. I wonder how much Rush or Michael Savage or Richard Perle or Bill Safire are getting under the table. For enough money, most people would say great things about even the greatest idiocy. Explains a lot.
Propaganda…the thing we have to ask ourselves is Mr. Armstrong really alone? I mean the GAO according to CNN has two investigations of the Bush administration breaking the propaganda laws. This is disgusting, Goebbels would be proud really, this only goes to show the media manipulation of the massive ignorant population of the US (mainly in the Red States obviously), how easily ppl are swayed by out right lies, and half-truths, and yet Bush was re-elected. This only goes to show how proto-fascist the US has become. True republicans should be shocked that the government is now manipulating the media. If you think Armstrong is alone…think again.
According to the New York Times article listed in the topic post, the GAO has concluded that the administration did violate the law in both cases. Some of them were struck dumb. Seriously, wait for Friday's Scarborough transcript. If the GOP is smart, they'll let the conservative journalists forge the reaction. A General Note on "How many others?" The left must show restraint and be methodical. Get the facts, recite them matter-of-factly, and if "middle America" doesn't get it, they're simply being obstinate. Democrats and other liberals must remember to not promise what they cannot deliver. This deal took over a year to break scandalously, and it's highly visible inasmuch as it runs through the Department of Education. I don't imagine Rush is on the take from any cabinet department simply because it's too visible. The ... um ... yeah ... anyway, they scurry for cover when the light hits them, and we're expected to believe they were all clearing the kitchen in a panic at the same time. Additionally, as some conservative journalists are making clear, this is such a violation of journalistic principle as to forever damage a person's credibility. Even if they're sold morally, they can do more for society if they're not sold financially in such a direct manner. This isn't just sinister, it's downright stupid. If we combine three simple ideas-- (1) Reaction: "What were you thinking?" (2) Dept. of Education: "The contract paid to provide the straightforward distribution of information about the department's mission and N.C.L.B. - a permissible use of taxpayer funds." (3) Ron Suskind: "Bush's style of top-down management means that cabinet departments are no longer reflections of their secretaries but of the president himself - or, more precisely, his will." (IHT) --we start hoping for other explanations. Because with a "with us or against us" mentality pervading the whole of the administration, and as the Iraqi situation repeatedly demonstrates (e.g. yellowcake forgeries, troop levels vs. insurgency, Geneva Conventions vs. prisoner abuse), there is a certain modus operandi about the Bush administration suggesting that the official view doesn't recognize the potential conflict of interests. As fundamentally flawed as the DoE-Williams agreement might seem, it simply never occurred to anyone participating in the official discussion that there was something amiss about buying off journalists. After all, it's just a contract. Journalistic principle is mere abstraction, "liberal elitism", and thus never enters the discussion. It does make me wonder, though, if this is really how "middle America" wishes to be represented. ____________________ Notes: Suskind, Ron. "Bush's second-term cabinet of incuriosities". IHT.com, December 29, 2004. See http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2004/12/28/opinion/edsuskind.html See Topic Post for NYTimes.com citation.
Yeah! That's sorta like Hilary's campaign fundraiser for her senate run, isn't it. But Hilary's guy was indicted! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
that is off topic and wholely irrelevent. fund raising and bribing journalists with tax payer money to front a certain point of view are no where near the same level.
Yes, but in true Fox News Channel fashion, marv is using anything negative about the current administration to point out something negative in the left. That way, you don't actually have to discuss the wrong doings of Bush co.
More to the point Top, he is indulging in: Red herring: attempting to support one proposition by arguing for a different one entirely, or dodging the main argument by going off on a tangent. http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm If you would like to begin a thread to discuss qustionable fundraising practices by the former First Lady, feel free. This thread is about corrupt journalism, and those responsible for funding it.
Maybe he will next try to blame this situation on the Clintons. I'm surprised that no one on the right has yet tried to blame Clinton for the tsunami. From The Onion: Limbaugh Says Drug Addiction A Remnant Of Clinton Administration WEST PALM BEACH, FL—Frankly discussing his addiction to painkillers, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh told his radio audience Monday that his abuse of OxyContin was a "remnant of the anything-goes ideology of the Clinton Administration." "Friends, all I can say is 'I told you so,'" said Limbaugh, from an undisclosed drug-treatment facility. "Were it not for Bill Clinton's loose policies on drug offenders and his rampant immorality, I would not have found myself in this predicament." Limbaugh added that he's staying at a rehab center created by the tax-and-spend liberals.
The Smooth Flavor of Scarborough Country Conservative pundit blisters Williams deal As promised, the scorching commentary from Joe Scarborough regarding Armstrong Williams' pay-for-play deal with the United States government: As I said before, it would be wise for conservative politicians to take their cues from conservative journalists. This is, of course, counterintuitive since the process usually works the other way around, but, like Mr. Scarborough, we're not used to it being so tangible or blatant. And Scarborough's harsh criticism apparently chased Armstrong Williams out of the building: Scarborough's guest, Mr. John Avlon, called the deal "inexcusibly bad judgment", and described the arrangement as "taking a quarter of a million dollars to try to spin the news cycle". Perhaps a "duh" statement, Avlon continued: Outrageous, to be sure. But what's this "all of a sudden we start to find out the line is blurred"? The talking heads have long sacrificed truth for politics; the only difference here is the currency: money instead of one's integrity, decency, or soul. Scarborough referred to himself as a center-right reporter, and while that merciful classification is an oddity in itself--either "center" or "reporter" are worthy of challenge--the question still stands for his crowd: Avlon noted that the deal "breaks every commandment of journalism there is". Scarborough pointed out that while the Democrats will "have fun with this", it's the Republicans' own fault, and one of the "stupidest things" he's ever heard of. While issues of legality are up in the air, Avlon, author of the book Independent Nation and writer for the New York Sun, pointed out that the DoE-Williams deal "doesn't pass the smell test", which "should have been enough from the get-go to stop them from going down this path". Apparently before Tribune Media Services' announced their decision, Scarborough and Avlon discussed the possibility of TMS firing Williams. "There needs to be accountability on this," said Avlon. "This is unacceptable." In addition to restating his "center-right" alignment, Joe plugged John Avlon's book again, and belittled Armstrong Williams one last time: "I wish Armstrong would have been here to debate you.* But, apparently, he was afraid of John and he was afraid of facing up to the music tonight." • • • Rather than taking issue with Scarborough's timing, we might reflect on what the scandal brings. Punditry is a bizarre game; daily we watch and read distortions of the truth, and while I tend to side with liberal pundits more often than not--as political opinion passed off as fact seems an accepted part of both politics and news, while we still hesitate in the face of blatant, sac-kicking reality, the problem has been with us, and growing, for some time. The last decade has brought us a sharpening of the knives; conservative right-wing radio became a nationwide sensation so that every bigot and moron seeking identification alongside the GOP has been able to pitch the case to "middle America". The rise of dubious characters like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly is symptomatic of seemingly-declining educational standards and a diminishing need for reality. A liberal's opinion is a lie, but a conservative's lie is an opinion, and how dare the "liberal elitists" oppress "middle America". The GOP, rendered soulless through its association with capitalists and evangelical Christians, generally sees no real problem in making the sale by any terms possible. The Machiavellian complexities of such an outlook are, by and large, too subtle for "middle America", and such considerations are given over to the liberals, who are branded "elitist" for such considerations. Even and especially those who find the Machiavellian vision distasteful to varying degrees. John Avlon pointed to a takeover of media by partisanship and polarization: "And this is a symptom of that. This is a cause of that." Sounds like the whole diseased enchilada right there, and in a way the off-key harmony works. It's too circular, though, too independent of its Universe. In the end, we must face the fact that in a consumer-driven marketplace of ideas, there is a truly vicious cycle in place by which declining standards demand further decline. What is the short summary of the bullet list? Americans sometimes seem to treat communication as if it's good enough to have a noun and a verb and therefore it's a sentence and that's all there is to it. And, true to a theory, Americans don't seem to have time, even if they have the will, to attend to the philosophy of communication. Only some personal necessity--say, staking an argument on an unproven theory, for instance--compels people to even ask the necessary questions; the phrase "philosophy of communication" seems foreign. Not French or something, but utterly alien to the Universe, and yes, that's a personal reflection of some curiosity to this scribe.° Thus, any statistical or factual assertion is greeted with the cynical expectation of underlying politics, and public outcry, while it often targets legitimately problematic assertions, often appears to arise from intolerance inasmuch as certain egregious violations transcend some abstract limit. In the political arena, it often looks like the professional sports rule: "Never hit back." The primary offender in a fight is sometimes penalized; the retaliation, however, is always penalized. This was the "Slick" in Slick Willie: he had a way of hitting back at his opponents that was nearly as graceful as, and certainly more hip than Ronald Reagan's belittling passive-aggression. But the Democrats, perhaps because of the complexity of the liberal politic they would like to imagine themselves answering to, tend to be rejected when they meet the Republicans at the level the people demand. Is the solution, then, to pioneer negativity? And at some point in there, the cynicism becomes so thick that it is virtually impossible for many to distinguish between facts and opinion, truth and rhetoric, criticism and hyperbole. And it is within this environment that something like the DoE-Williams deal develops without anybody stopping to question the basic principles that failed the "smell test", that should have brought those involved to pause and reflect. So perhaps this analysis merely brings us to once again consider Avlon's, "all of a sudden ...". It seems inevitable, and about the closest to self-righteous I can get is that I'm glad it was the other side of the aisle that got nailed. Democrats are rife with their own corruptions of varying degrees, but politically this is the equivalent to getting caught banging your own children at a Motel 6. And that's not something anyone wishes to answer for in terms of core principles in an abstract but vital association, that is, in terms of their identity politic and ideological allegiances. Liberals should not be particularly gleeful; this line was going to be crossed at some point, and liberals ought to be sincerely glad it wasn't the Democrats that blanked out on this particular judgment of common sense. But conservatives are truly disappointed and discouraged tonight. More than their free-spending president, or the celebrity governor that some GOP sympathizers like to disavow, this strikes right at major centers of principle. They have the offices, they have the houses, they have the power. And yet they now wonder if it ever was truly theirs, if they could have gotten here without the unique brand of corruption that marks the conservative political representation. They are owed some time to consider this matter carefully. After all, it's dangerous enough when any politician goes off half-cocked under the duress of public scrutiny and judgment, and exceptionally so when that politician is a conservative. Liberal address of this scandal must necessarily be restrained, dignified, and serious. They've opened their own gaping wound. Savagely tearing at the gash will only disgust the people who love a good, bloody fight. After all, while liberals aren't known to give professional wrestling the kind of ratings it gets from "middle America", it's fair enough to wonder why villains are so popular. Then again, would Adorable Adrian Adonis be adored in '05? ____________________ Notes: MSNBC.com. Scarborough Country. January 7, 2005. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6808748/
Scorched! Pitts takes a bite out of Williams • • • I ... I really don't think there's much to add to this one. Actually, there is, but I would have had to cite the whole column. The parts about the professional hazards of being a prestigious journalist, of the decline of the journalistic reputation, and even considerations of racepolitik. I suppose I could add that in addition to having clarified whether or not he is a journalist, Armstrong Williams has cast into doubt the issue of whether or not he's smart. After all, with a syndicated newspaper column, a television show, and a radio program, Williams thought of himself as a businessman, and not a journalist. No wonder he didn't stop to think about his journalistic duty. Between the nature of the Bush administration and Williams' utter lack of intelligent consideration, it seems this debacle was almost inevitable. ____________________ Notes: Pitts Jr., Leonard. "Armstrong Williams meets strong-arm politics". SeattlePI.com, January 16, 2005. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002151915_pitts16.html
Paid Paid: Syndicated columnist bought by Bush Gallagher failed to disclose HHS contract Gallagher initially responded to the issue by asking, "Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have gladly told anyone who asked, but that "frankly, it never occurred" to her to to disclose the contract. Later yesterday, she filed a column that stated, "I should have disclosed a government contract when I later wrote about the Bush marriage initiative. I would have, if I had remembered it. My apologies to my readers." Additionally, Gallagher is anxious to separate this controversy from the one surrounding Armstrong Williams, who also took money to pitch Bush programs. HHS assistant secretary Wade Horn also defended Gallagher's contract: Nonetheless, the contract issue presents some problems. While under contract, Gallagher used her syndicated column to dismiss arguments against Bush's marriage policy as nonsense, and also attacked as scandalous Democratic opposition to Bush welfare reform. Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review Online--one of the publications that carried Gallagher during the contract period, said, "We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio." United Press Syndicate, Gallagher's distributor, intends to take no action similar to Tribune Media Service's dropping of Armstrong Williams. "We did not know about the contract," said UPS spokeswoman Kathie Kerr. "We would have probably liked to have known ... (This) is what we hired Maggie to write about. It probably wouldn't have changed our mind to distribute it." • • • Once again, we come around to blaming the teachers. At the heart of it, that's Gallagher's defense: the contract was such "small potatoes" that it didn't really matter. It didn't occur to a professional journalist to list a potential conflict of interest. Perhaps this defense has some measure of efficacy if one is Armstrong Williams, who claims to have looked at his broadcasting and written columns as "business" deals and not journalism. But Ms. Gallagher, the author of such family-oriented articles as "Defending Dr. Laura" (March 15, 2000), "Goodbye Murphy Brown, Hello Marriage Movement" (July 6, 2000), "Why Murphy Brown Lost" (August 31, 2000), and wrote of President Bush in the wake of 9/11, "When you are scared as Americans have been, you want to know that there is a daddy in charge," there's a lot of credibility at stake. That Ms. Gallagher's contract coincided so squarely with her political message might prove more problematic than she foresaw. Of course, perhaps it's a symptom of liberal elitism that, upon reading of the deal, my first reaction was "Who is Maggie Gallagher?" And it's not like she had a lot of credibility to give. Were she more visible during the first term of Bush's administration, she would have been dismissed as nothing more than a GOP shill. So the end product is the same: finding out that she was under administration contract doesn't really provide any surprises. We'll see if conservative "journalists" will join the nitpicking defense or continue their excoriation of these shady deals. But blaming the teachers? Do they really not teach the phrase "conflict of interest" anymore? Or is journalism finally so vilified by the public than any hack can hang out a shingle and demand journalistic respect? So it was with Armstrong Williams. So, apparently, it is with Maggie Gallagher. Question: If conservative journalists don't understand the basics of journalistic commitment, perhaps those not already sold to the bandwagon have a point in not trusting them? Why not just say that the internet age and demands of politics make conventions like "journalistic integrity" quaint and outdated? After all, it worked for terrorism and the administration's human rights policy. ____________________ Note: Kurtz, Howard. "Writer Backing Bush Plan Had Gotten Federal Contract". Washington Post. January 26, 2005. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36545-2005Jan25.html See Also - TownHall.com. "Maggie Gallagher". See http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/archive.shtml
Yep. Advertising in action. No harm done. Anyone who has the money and the will - more power to 'em. John Kerry probably did things like that too. You are probably just too focused on preventing conservatism, that you cannot see that. You basically have tunnel vision, like many other liberals.
th3darkt0w3r, Of course, your own myopic view precludes you from even considering the facts. Rather than feign any attempt to debunk the poster's claims, you assume he must have a hidden agenda. Hidden agenda or otherwise, the facts speak for themselves. But then again, what would I know? I've been out hugging trees all goddamn day long.
Strike Three! No three-strike rule for government ethics Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Liberal Media Conspiracy. Yup. (Steve Benson, Arizona Republic, February 4, 2005) I actually missed this one until I went to catch up on recent frames from one of my favorite cartoonists. McManus? Perhaps my "liberal elitism" just didn't expect the names to keep coming. One would think common sense would have advised against regular recruitment of journalists as paid advertisers. Nonetheless, it is again, apparently, USA Today that broke the story late last month. Strangely, I haven't heard much from "liberal" media commentators. So let's line 'em up, with their responses: • Armstrong Williams: $240,000 to promote No Child Left Behind. Said he viewed the deal not as a journalist, but a businessman. • Maggie Gallagher: $21,500 contract to promote Bush policy. Said disclosure of contract "never occured to her". • Mike McManus: $4,000? $10,000? $50,000? Paid to train marriage counselors according to Bush policy. Defense: "I don't see that it's relevant". Coming off an election cycle rife with complaints about a "liberal media conspiracy", this is an interesting trend. Perhaps it's merely an accident that the Bush administration's paid propagandists seem to have put journalistic duty and integrity so low on the ladder as to not even be worthy of consideration. The Bush administration has since adopted rules against such contracts. Better late than never, but one wonders how the question came to be so prominent at the outset. Lots of people have certain obligations to their work. A Miller Brewing employee was recently fired, apparently for consuming Bud Light, a competitor's product, in public while off-duty. Police officers, attorneys, even soldiers have such obligations. As an entry level administrative services employee of an insurance company, even I had to sign the annual conflict-of-interest declarations. College professors should not sleep with their students, says the conventional wisdom. News readers on the various networks frequently make conflict-of-interest disclaimers when a news story touches on their employer or the employer's parent company. So perhaps I'm missing something: when did the line get so fuzzy? And no, I'm not sticking in a FOX News joke here. _____________________ Notes: Benson, Steve. "Media In The Hip Pocket". Arizona Republic. February 4, 2005. See http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/articles/020405benson.html Drinkard, Jim and Mark Memmott. "HHS says it paid columnist for help". USAToday.com. January 27, 2005. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-27-hhs_x.htm See Also - Seattle Times. "3rd columnist paid to tout HHS policy". SeattleTimes.com. January 29, 2005. See http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002164234_watch29.html
