Every day I’m on this blog writing about my faith and political ideology. Although I’m registered “Undeclared,” I vote for Republicans. I admit my bias and purpose up front for all the world to see, if they don’t already know it.
I am a conservative Christian with an agenda: 1) To share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and warn the world of his coming wrath; 2) To facilitate the spread of conservatism (which I firmly believe is better for this country than liberalism) and right conduct every chance I get.
It is challenging enough to be an outspoken, Christian conservative black woman with strong views and a sharp pen. That my ideology doesn’t fall within the purview of liberalism shocks many in the blogosphere and the real world. Being the target of the bitterness and contempt of others is something I can live with because I consider my cause righteous.
Contrary to what my detractors say, I’m nobody’s partisan hack. I am a writer who happens to be conservative, and I pursue paying assignments. I don’t hide that. If I submit an article to a paying market, I expect to be paid for it. There is nothing unethical or partisan-hackish about it. I believe what I write. I stand behind what I write.
Along comes Armstrong Williams, a black conservative commentator who was given a fat check by the Bush Administration to push the No Child Left Behind law on his television show and convince other black journalists to do the same. In his column and on his show, he failed to disclose these important facts.
Reinforcing the black-conservatives-are-sellouts stereotype, Williams has just handed to liberals, on a plate made of pure gold served by a well-dressed butler in a most tastefully decorated setting, enough fodder to keep them gobbling for months to come. In the aftermath of John Kerry’s demoralizing defeat in a failed bid to lead the free world, liberals have found the scandal they’ve been searching for. Thanks, Mr. Williams.
His syndicate, Tribune Media Services, has dropped his column. His show, The Right Side with Armstrong Williams, will probably be canceled, too. And he deserves all the scorn the liberal blogosphere is about to dump on him. In his defense he says:
“It’s a fine line. Even though I’m not a journalist — I’m a commentator — I feel I should be held to the media ethics standard. My judgment was not the best. I wouldn’t do it again, and I learned from it.” (Source)
Williams says he’s not a journalist, but it’s all semantics. I don’t consider myself one, either, but I fully understand (and accept) the concept of disclosure, conflicts of interest, defamation and other ethical aspects of publication. I don’t care what I call myself. I must be held to the same standards as everyone else, and so does Williams.
I think of what I do as quasi-journalism; therefore, I’m bound by some of the same enumerated journalistic ethics as any reporter. I can and will be held liable for libeling someone on this blog and in my column. I’d feel a personal, if not a professional, obligation to disclose that I was being paid to promote a product or political candidate, if that were the case.
There are more important events going on in the world, to be sure, but for the next few months, the blogosphere will be buzzing about this. Williams is about to find out what Trent Lott, Howell Raines and Dan Rather learned. The noise of the blogosphere is deafening. Its pace is quick, its influence is far-reaching and its wrath is damaging.
Why is it good policy to disclose conflicts of interest, real or perceived? Because it promotes trust and reliance. If you have an opinion on a particular issue and write about it, readers are clear on what you stand for. If you’re being paid to write for someone else, that’s still OK. It’s called a job. Most people need at least one. But if you’re a journalist or quasi-journalist in the business of sharing information and reporting facts, and you’re being paid to promote an organization’s product or ideology, truth, honesty and fairness would dictate that you disclose this information.
For example, during the election, Rush Limbaugh disclosed that he was an unpaid consultant for the Bush campaign. It was out in the open. He had nothing to hide and he wasn’t outed by the media seeking a scandal. (Clarification: Although Rush said he wasn’t being paid, it was still in his and his audience’s best interest to be up front about this.)
Williams has done the opposite, and it looks bad. I don’t care about him; I care about honesty and integrity. It’s about character.
Contrary to what liberals think, black conservatives are not a monolith. Williams is responsible for his own actions, but the perception he leaves in his wake is detrimental to the cause so many black conservatives fight for. I take that personally.
I have no comment on George Bush but this one: his slackness in letting this happen is not surprising. He’s a politician. Enough said.
Much worse things have happened in politics, of course. For instance, a sitting president having sex with a woman not his wife inside the White House — government property — and using his staff and the machinery of government to cover it up, then perjuring himself (lying) before a federal grand jury, getting impeached for it in the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate, not having the decency to resign and to this day still won’t admit wrongdoing, then writing a book to profit from his shame, is much worse than Bush paying/bribing a journalist to push his agenda.
At the end of the day, all we have is our character.
Be warned, readers. Some people don’t care about good character. Liberal bloggers will be all over Williams like black on coal, white on rice and any other racial play on words you can think of. Do not be surprised if you can’t find even one black liberal in the blogosphere or the real world taking their white counterparts to task for the racist overtones that will eventually permeate columns and blog posts about Williams. (Update: The game is afoot already. But hold on. Is the blogger black or white? Unknown by me.) (Update II: A commenter says the blogger in question is black. Right or wrong, it makes a difference. The commenter also makes a good point: Bush needs to be held accountable, too. Developing…)
Watch and learn, but don’t get angry and don’t defend Williams’s actions. Get righteously indignant. What he did was wrong, and he must pay the consequences. That’s the one thing we must be consistent about even if liberals won’t. I want this episode to be a lesson to all conservatives — bloggers, blog readers, writers, politicians — whoever you are.
This blog is not a repository for the defense of wrongdoers, no matter what color, religion or political affiliation. Mr. Williams, my prayers are with you. I have no idea how you may be feeling right about now. You have my sympathy. The success you’ve achieved is admirable, and I hope your career is salvageable.
My final word to readers on this subject: if we believe we’re on the side of good, we must maintain honesty and integrity. Character is what you are when nobody’s looking. Be neither liars nor hypocrites. Tell the truth and practice what you preach.
———————————————————————————————-
Sources:
- The San Diego Union-Tribune: “Commentator paid by U.S. to tout program”
- MSNBC: “Commentator was paid to promote schools initiative”
- NPR: “Pundit: Contract Tied to Coverage Promoting Administration”
- USAToday: “Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law”
- New York Times: “Mr. Williams, 45, apologized yesterday for blurring his roles as an independent commentator and a paid promoter. ‘This is a great lesson to me,’ he told Paul Begala of CNN, who himself has an off-air job as a paid Democratic political consultant but discloses both roles.”
What other bloggers are saying: Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed, The Moderate Voice, Alarming News, Michael King, Right Wing News, Casey Lartigue, Expertise, Sisu, Slant Point, D.C. Thornton, EduWonk, Booker Rising, Buzz Machine, Parablemania, Classical Values, Baldilocks, Not Exactly Rocket Science, Right on the Left Beach…
Power Line: “We’ve become big fans of blogger La Shawn Barber. See, for example, La Shawn’s ‘Armstrong Williams: The wrong side.’ Today Townhall publishes La Shawn’s guest column on our unpleasantly close encounter with NV: ‘Nick’s nasty bout with blog envy.’ La Shawn, if you see a middle aged white guy hulking behind you with a hockey stick, run like hell. He likes to whack people with it.”
Update III: I have a message for liberals linking to this site, who know better than to trackback. Your scribbling is ineffective, your “insults” laughable and your style and expression, unoriginal. If this is the best you people can come up with, I almost feel sorry for you. Almost.
Update IV: For some reason Word Press and HaloScan are incompatible. For HaloScan users wanting to link to this post, try Simpletracks.
Update V (1/13): Point of correction from an admirer: “You idiot…Rush was not disclosing that he ‘was an unpaid consultant for the Bush campaign.’ Someone refered (sic) to him as a consultant to the campaign and he was repeating it. He often stated, just after uttering the above comment, that it was news to him that he had that status….please get it right.
Wow, La Shawn…
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Such a thoughtful and well-worded post.
Comment by Mike M. — 01.08.05 @ 10:48 am
As always, your head is on straight. The left has been looking for unethical(?) stuff like this on the part of the administration. Can we now assume that this is the ONLY example? One worries.
The interesting thing this morning is that there seems to no connection made between the Williams mess and the confirmation of Margaret Spellings. If she was to not be confirmed, that would probably be OK, but one would hope that No Child Left Behind is not at the same time brought down.
Comment by patrick — 01.08.05 @ 11:07 am
‘Reinforcing the black-conservatives-are-sellouts stereotype,’
It doesnt’ have to be about stereotypes. Who else was in on the payola scam?
Comment by actus — 01.08.05 @ 11:11 am
LaShawn Barber crafts the best-articulated takedown of Armstrong Williams out there:Reinforcing the black-conservatives-are-sellouts stereotype, Williams has just handed to liberals, on a plate made of pure gold served by a well-dressed butler in a mos…
Trackback by What Attitude Problem? — 01.08.05 @ 11:25 am
La Shawn,
I wholeheartedly agree with your excellent post. I find this whole episode to be quite terrible and an awful blow to conservatives everywhere, especially black conservatives. What the Bush administration and Williams did was clearly not ethical, in my judgment, and BOTH parties to this transaction should have to face some kind of real consequences.
Another facet to this story will be the reaction of the liberal punditry. Watch with delight as the liberal blogosphere tears into this with all the force of last month’s tsunami. Don’t expect them to spare the racial anecdotes, stereotypes, and epithets either. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from participating in online political discussion forums, it’s that leftists can’t get enough of blacks-eating-watermelon jokes if the object of their scorn happens to be black conservative. How disgusting that is.
Comment by Tom B. — 01.08.05 @ 11:31 am
I want to submit a correction to what I wrote in my previous post. I said:
“Watch with delight as the liberal blogosphere tears into this with all the force of last month’s tsunami.”
What I meant to say is that liberal bloggers will tear into this story with delight, not that we will take delight watching this spectacle. Sorry for the confusion.
Comment by Tom B. — 01.08.05 @ 11:34 am
LaShawn,
Great work on your part! It’s sad that Williams offers the Libs a bit of cannon fodder for attack. I guess this situation shows that we aren’t all of one thought.
Comment by Dominic — 01.08.05 @ 11:34 am
I’m rather insensitive when it comes to racial stereotyping, but I have found “flies on a jam lid” to be a much safer expression, and have avoided public use of the subtle and specialized “brown on rice”.
Seriously, tho, the real issue is that it was thoughtless of the Bush administration to do this. An open and acknowledged shill would have been nearly as effective as a covert shill, and far better than an exposed one. They gambled and lost.
Comment by triticale — 01.08.05 @ 11:47 am
I’m saddened for several reasons. First, as a volunteer literacy tutor who teaches with phonics, I’ve seen how well phonics works and am a stong (unpaid!) supporter of NCLB for its support of phonics and testing. I see this revelation as damaging to both NCLB and Armstrong Williams, a columnist I admired and enjoyed reading.
My prayers are with Armstrong Williams as well.
Comment by Elizabeth B — 01.08.05 @ 11:58 am
Paying Journalists For Coverage Stinks
The blogosphere buzzed yesterday with the revelation that pundit Armstrong Williams received $241,000 from the Department of Education to promote the No Child Left Behind Act and push other commentators to do the same. Williams did not disclose the pay…
Trackback by Captain's Quarters — 01.08.05 @ 12:02 pm
Don’t assume that all liberals think black conservatives are a monolith, LaShawn. Nor should you fall into the moral equivalency trap by immediately dropping a Clinton reference.
Much of the anticipated “ferocity” of the liberal blogosphere boils down to a pushback: I’m tired of hearing conservative commentators tell me that only Red Staters have moral values, that poverty is caused by laziness, and that the only way to salvation is through Christian values. The clear implication of that is that if only I had moral rectitude, I’d be a Republican!
If the “moral values” thing wasn’t shoved down our throats, there wouldn’t be as much of an outcry. Period.
Comment by tvd — 01.08.05 @ 12:02 pm
Pimp my punditry
The Education Department paid black conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote the No Child Left Behind Act on his television show and “urge other black journalists to do the…
Trackback by The Smoking Room — 01.08.05 @ 12:07 pm
White House Paid A Commentator To Argue Its Case
No matter how you slice it, dice it, and try to finesse it , in
Trackback by The Moderate Voice — 01.08.05 @ 12:12 pm
Opinion Payola
What Armstrong Williams did was very wrong. It was also very wrong for the Education Department to offer him money to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. He is paying for what he did, though - his column has…
Trackback by She Who Will Be Obeyed! — 01.08.05 @ 12:30 pm
Ideas for sale are still ideas!
Taking cash in exchange for promoting an idea sounds, well, sleazy. All the more so when the idea is a government program and is paid for with taxpayer’s money. Karol at Alarming News discusses the issue as it relates to…
Trackback by Classical Values — 01.08.05 @ 12:34 pm
Your Tax Dollars At Work
The Department of Education paid commentator Armstrong Williams to tout the No Child Left Behind education program that was a central achievement in Bush’s first term.A company run by Armstrong Williams, the syndicated commentator, was paid $240,000 b…
Trackback by Joust The Facts — 01.08.05 @ 12:48 pm
Good article re Mr. Armstrong. Not news that conservatives make mistakes in judgment, or can compromise ethics. Saw Mr. Armstrong on The Factor last night and seemed contrite, realizing his error/s. Lord knows, that is good enough for me. Your comparison to the former President and his response to moral lackings is telling, and in my eyes symptomatic of just one of the many differences between the elephants and donkeys. There is no moral high ground in the democratic party. If this is what feeds them, they are further down the food chain than even I thought. JH
Comment by John Hageman — 01.08.05 @ 12:49 pm
RODNEY PAIGE, ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, AND THE “PAY TO PANDER” SCANDAL
It stinks. From USA Today: Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 01.08.05 @ 12:53 pm
Putting People On A Pedestal
I just came across on article this morning about one of my favorite political commentators, Armstrong Williams. It seems he has admitted taking what amounts to a bribe, in the amount of $241,000 to promote President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act.
Trackback by Alternaview — 01.08.05 @ 1:19 pm
Ms. Barber Gets It Right
This is the issue: Character.
There’s nothing inherentl…
Trackback by Marked Up — 01.08.05 @ 1:30 pm
I suppose it’s not good what Armstrong did, not disclosing that he was on Bush’s payroll. I don’t know. I don’t begrudge anyone an opportunity to earn an honest buck. But who, exactly, in the Bush administration authorized this arrangement? And what did they expect from Armstrong? I know they wanted a foot in the door with black America, but did the administration think they were buying good P.R., or did they think they were buying Armstrong the man? And did they know that he wasn’t going to disclose the payment? Did they request that he not disclose it? There’s more to this than just Armstrong’s supposed poor judgement.
Comment by jay bird — 01.08.05 @ 1:35 pm
I just posted and got an FBI pop-up. Am I on your blacklist?
Comment by Sissy Willis — 01.08.05 @ 1:37 pm
> Taking cash in exchange for promoting an idea sounds, well, sleazy. All the more so when the idea is a government program and is paid for with taxpayer’s money.
That’s what PR firms, advertisers, campaign advisers and other employees do.
Comment by Andy Freeman — 01.08.05 @ 1:40 pm
Hi Sissy,
Did you try to post a link? My new spam plugin doesn’t like comments with links in the posts, a frequent spammer activity.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.08.05 @ 1:40 pm
Anyway, as I was commenting before being blacklisted (maybe because I tried to leave a link to the below-referenced blog post?):
I had blogged earlier — cynically — that as everyone in Washington does/did it (the NYT says “The Clinton administration was probably even more active than the Bush administration in distributing news segments promoting its policies”), the scandal would probably not have legs.
But your fiery and righteous rhetoric have inspired and convinced me that it will, indeed, be “a thing” — not only because the left will use it as a weapon of choice to bash Bush, but, more importantly, because the right side of the blogosphere won’t let either Armstrong Williams or the administration get away with it.
Comment by Sissy Willis — 01.08.05 @ 1:44 pm
Hi, La Shawn — yes. Thanks for your note.
Your essay — more like a fiery sermon — is truly awesome. It gave me goosebumps.
Comment by Sissy Willis — 01.08.05 @ 1:46 pm
Words Fail Me
The Bush Administration was wrong to pay Armstrong Williams to plug No Child Left Behind. For Williams, it was despicable for him to defend the payment, let alone accept it.
Trackback by dcthornton.com — 01.08.05 @ 1:51 pm
Right and Wrong
Armstrong Williams was wrong to take government money to promote an agenda and the Education Department under the Bush Administration was wrong to give out funds to push its propaganda.
Trackback by Right on the Left Beach — 01.08.05 @ 2:00 pm
The Armstrong Williams Problem
As I’m sure you’re all aware by now, it has been revealed that black political commentator Armstrong Williams was paid $250,000 by the Bush administration to talk nice about the No Child Left Behind act. Here are a list of problems I believe this sc…
Trackback by Say Anything — 01.08.05 @ 2:05 pm
The Armstrong Williams mess
Armstrong Williams has been one of my favorite commentators for years. Until yesterday, when it was revealed that Williams had taken cash from the Department of Education to hawk the No Child Left Behind act on his radio and television shows.
LaSha…
Trackback by Commonwealth Conservative — 01.08.05 @ 2:06 pm
Educating Blacks The Wrong Way
Michelle Malkin points to a USA Today story about Education Secretary Rod Paige’s office paying a professional journalist and radio host, Armstrong Williams, to promote No Child Left Behind on predominantly black radio stations and TV programs. That’…
Trackback by Slant Point — 01.08.05 @ 2:09 pm
What really surprises me is that Armstrong, who until now I had no doubts about his intelligence, could be so stupid. We all know, like it or not, that conservatives are held to a different standard about these things. Not just by the media, or the opposition, but also by many of our fellows as well. The left will use moral relativism to justify each others actions, but on the right, that isn’t a very option.
And all of this could have been avoided by a simple sentence in a single column, and added to his bio : Mr Armstrong, a consultant for the Bush adminstration yadda yadda yadda.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 01.08.05 @ 2:15 pm
Pay for punditry
La Shawn has the only words you need to read on the subject.
Comment by Inoperable Terran » Pay for punditry — 01.08.05 @ 2:58 pm
…being paid, at least admit it, by his silence, he is no better than Dan Rather in my book. La Shawn Barber has a scathing post on Armstrong Williams and the report yesterday.
Pingback by My View of the World — 01.08.05 @ 2:59 pm
Come On, Ride the Train!
La Shawn Barber has a couple must-read posts today.
The first is a reprint of a column published at TownHall.com (What? NRO and TownHall in the same month period? That’s too hot!) wherein she weighs in on the Powerline/Nick Coleman scuffle.
Then…
Trackback by The Sundries Shack — 01.08.05 @ 3:00 pm
Rod Paige and anyone in the Education Department that worked on this also need to be held accountable. This was, in my mine, a misuse of public funds at the least.
Comment by Patrick — 01.08.05 @ 3:01 pm
Thank you, La Shawn. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I, too, am a follower of Jesus. As such I lament any lack of complete candor on the part of any blogger. Now, in this SeeBeEss time of blatant disguising of motive and hiding of intent, for Williams to conceal his role as a compensated endorser cheapens all commentary.
I hope that he iw depapered and dewebbed for good.
Comment by Tom Johnson — 01.08.05 @ 3:11 pm
I think you are wrong about the reaction from the liberal blogs, they won’t go on a rampage against Williams, they’ll go on a rampage against Bush. An unethical reporter is not that big a deal, there are tons of them out there.
There are already efforts by liberal blogs to get a well crafted FOIA request to uncover any other payola scandals.
As one blogger put it,
They sank a quarter of a million into one not so prominent commentator to push a single issue — not even one where they really needed help — and they never greased anyone else? Not so credible.
By the way, what the White House did wasn’t just ’slackness’, it was illegal.
Finally, an Update on your Corner Update, Steve Gilliard is black, so the comment about ‘white counterparts’ doesn’t apply.
Comment by miguel — 01.08.05 @ 3:22 pm
I do not blame Brother Williams, I blame the Bush Administration. Thank you for your “right on” analogy. Unfortunately in our Conservative circles many cannot see the full picture because they are too busy sitting in the frame.
Let us see how many Conservative pundits will turn the tables on brother Williams and not blame the source.
Comment by Lashanda Antwerp — 01.08.05 @ 4:16 pm
Well said. As a classroom teacher, I can say that Williams has done incalculable damage to the cause of Educational Reform. I attributed L.S.B. on my posting, and can be seen here:
http://educationwonk.blogspot.com/2005/01/armstrong-williams-sells-his-soul.html
(Haloscan won’t TB on some platforms)
Comment by EdWonk — 01.08.05 @ 4:27 pm
Very Good post! I just found a new addition to my aggregator.
Comment by Brad Mills — 01.08.05 @ 5:11 pm
This was a fabulous post LaShawn, and I thank you for your reiteration that what we have atthe end of the day is our character. I think too many people forget that as they go about their daily business as well as their basic responsibilities as public mouthpieces. I’ll be linking to your post later on today after I get a chance to write up my thoughts, and I just wanted to let you know since your site doesn’t seem to want to accept trackbacks from me.
Comment by caltechgirl — 01.08.05 @ 5:29 pm
LaShawn Barber:
Magnificent post. I hope the Permalink lasts a long. long time. Sad as I am for Armstrong Williams, I cannot contain my contempt for the Bush Administration. They started it, and now they are stuck with it. From now on every commentator who has anything favorable to say about some Bush initiative is subject to being suspected of prostitution. How could they possibly have been so stupid? Pushing open borders is bad enough, but this thing of subsidizing propaganda in the media is positively French–it stinks of Camembert left out in the sun.
Comment by John Van Laer — 01.08.05 @ 5:54 pm
The Armstrong Williams’ Debacle
African American conservative commentator Armstrong Williams admitted on Friday that he had taken nearly a quarter of a million dollars “to promote the [No Child Left Behind] law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black jou…
Trackback by Scribe — 01.08.05 @ 6:11 pm
LaShawn,
That saying “Character is what you are when nobody’s looking” is fantastic. I have not heard that in probably 15 years - it’s like hearing the soothing words of an old friend. Where does it come from? I’ve always wondered this.
Comment by BuckTownDusty — 01.08.05 @ 6:30 pm
Just Great
Saw conservative pundit Armstrong Williams making his mea culpa for this in front of the actual Bill O’Reilly yesterday. Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit…
Trackback by baldilocks — 01.08.05 @ 6:47 pm
Had Mr. Williams disclosed this information, would liberals still attack him? Would it still be a hot issue?
While I am dissapointed in that it all looks so bad coming out this way, I am glad that he at least had enough integrity to admit his folly. I wish him well.
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 01.08.05 @ 6:47 pm
I’ve also linked to your post, and since I use haloscan, here’s my url:
http://caltechgirlsworld.blogspot.com/2005/01/price-of-career.html
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Comment by caltechgirl — 01.08.05 @ 7:14 pm
Thanks for visiting, everyone!
caltechgirl - Thanks for linking to the post! You may want to try Simpletracks for trackbacking. See the link in Update IV.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.08.05 @ 7:46 pm
While I think it’s fair to hold President Bush accountable for this ethical lapse in his administration, I don’t think it’s fair to say that he is RESPONSIBLE. Williams needs to let us know who he dealt with, and that person needs to let us know how high up the hierarchy this decision (to pay Williams to push NCLB without disclosing the payment) went. From what I can find on the ‘net, it looks like this decision was entirely within the Department of Education, and the Secretary knew what was going on before the contracts were approved.
Is there a chance that Williams was paid, but was NOT told to keep the fact that he was paid quiet? In other words, is this a matter of extremely poor judgement on the part of Armstrong Williams and not a matter of bribing Williams by the Bush administration?
This sounds to me like one of those instances where people in the administration get a “bright” idea and run with it, without getting authorization from the higher-ups. As smart as Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and George Bush are, I can’t see how they’d even consider pulling something this stupid. What is the upside? A little more positive press on NCLB. What is the downside? A huge scandal. It just isn’t worth it.
Comment by John Clifford — 01.08.05 @ 7:55 pm
I hope Rod Paige is brought into this, it seems unfair that Brother Williams should have to shoulder the full burden and blame.
The whole thing stinks and if any Conservatives does not agree with us on this, well, they are just not dealing with reality. Speaking of which, I wonder what Madame Coulter will say?
Comment by Lashanda Antwerp — 01.08.05 @ 7:59 pm
WOW! I am attracted to blogs whose originators are articulate. I found out about your blog through the powerline link. I’ll visit again. Your unashamed commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ, righteousness and justice coupled with your ability to turn a phrase and clearly state your argument is refreshing. May God use you in advancing the cause of the kingdom
Comment by pjlr — 01.08.05 @ 8:04 pm
Whew! Ouch! LB, I can almost see the smoke coming out of your ears. It does my heart good!
Armstrong Williams has been a favorite of mine for years. You are right, of course, that he used very poor judgement, and he readily admitted as much during his O’Reilly interview — not in accepting pay for promoting something he believes in and was already promoting on his own dime, but in not openly and frequently publicizing the fact of being paid when he endorsed or promoted the program.
As I understand the situation, however, there are a couple of errors in some of the reporting: Unless I’m misinformed, the Department of Education hired a PR firm to promote No Child Left Behind, and the PR firm in turn hired Armstrong Williams.
This is not a “distinction without a difference,” there is a substantial difference. For one thing, it’s doubtful that anyone in the Bush Administration, including Rod Paige, was made aware of specific arrangements - the PR firm would have been contracted and paid to handle the promotion of NCLB, period.
The PR firm would be responsible for developing campaigns, selecting talent (Williams and any others), creating or subbing out commercial copy and ads, taking care of all the minutiae involved. They would be judged on results, not process, via polling, focus groups, etc., and their contract renewed, or not, accordingly. It’s a bit over the top to assume the Dept. of Ed, let alone the Pres, micro-manages projects that have been contracted out.
Which raises a second issue: Although Mr. Williams was in fact promoting a Department of Education program, he was not doing so on behalf of the Department of Education; his representation was for and on behalf of his employer, the PR firm.
That does not alleviate his responsibility to his readers, and he certainly should have made clear in his columns and commentary when he was delivering a commercial message (”I wouldn’t support it if I didn’t believe in it,” just as any number of familiar voices tell us, “I wouldn’t recommend this product if I didn’t use it and like it myself”).
That said, I do see an error in judgement, but I don’t see a “conflict of interest,” nor a “weakness of character.” I still believe Armstrong Williams is a decent, honorable and honest man, and I feel terrible for him.
Comment by Merry — 01.08.05 @ 8:16 pm
Blame Armstrong, and no one else
It seems that the RNC memo is out and Conservative bloggers on all the internets are blaming Armstrong Williams for the entire Payolagate (*hat tip to Oliver Willis) scandal.
La Shawn Barber, in her post Armstrong Williams: The Wrong Side, makes the…
Trackback by Russell Rants — 01.08.05 @ 8:45 pm
The reason conservatives are held to a different standard than liberals is not just because of the ubiquitious liberal bias in the media, but because the Republican party claims to have a monopoly on “family values,” “moral values,” and the like. You can’t have it both ways, getting votes based on superior “morality” and getting a free ride in the media during potential scandals involving immoral behavior because you believe your opponents would in the same situation.
Comment by Steph — 01.08.05 @ 9:31 pm
White House Paid Off Pundit
Just when being black and conservative was not taboo, a black and conservative man screwed it up. Kinda ironic, huh? If you haven’t heard about it yet, a columnist named Armstrong Williams was paid off by the Bush Administration (to…
Trackback by The Political Teen — 01.08.05 @ 9:49 pm
+1 for Merry’s comment.
Comment by Grumpy — 01.08.05 @ 10:51 pm
Being a despised liberal Democrat, I admit to never hearing of you until today when I was directed to your site by a liberal site. I also admit to being surprised that I agree that, while this scandal is bad, it will go on and on ad nauseum.
My surprise turned to slack-jawed amazement that you admitted to not being surpised about the Bush administration’s involvement in this breach of ethics and then forgave it because he’s a politician. What an odd thing to say! He’s much more than a politician. He is the President of the United States and I expect the leader of the free world to be impeccably ethical. If he’s not, there really is no hope that democracy will live past its infancy.
I must also add that I’ve been a teacher for 25 years and No Child Left Behind has been so poorly conceived as to actually discourage true educational reform.
Comment by Kris — 01.08.05 @ 10:59 pm
Excellent article, La Shawn. I’ve watched Armstrong Williams’ TV show on occasion and enjoyed it. He also appears on panels from time and usually does add a lot. This unacknowledged pay problem is a serious blow to his credibility. I saw him on O’Reilly last night and to me Mr. Williams didn’t seem to appreciate that what he has done has really hurt him. I wonder if he still feels that the money was worth it.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 01.09.05 @ 12:01 am
Ryan Sager: Law and the Armstrong Williams Case
I’ve been reading various bloggers’ takes on the Armstrong Williams case
Trackback by Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog — 01.09.05 @ 12:53 am
Good morning, La Shawn!! This “No Child Left Behind” act is, as we know, a further federalization of the already secularist ‘education’ system; a step in the WRONG direction, not to mention the cost. That Mr. Williams would promote such a thing bothers me more than even the non-disclosure of the honorarium.
For ‘Williams’, I’ll still trust Walter.
Comment by Mark Slater — 01.09.05 @ 1:04 am
My question:
Why not hold accountable the Dem’s that LIE about NCLB, saying that Bush isn’t fully funding it.
While, Mr. Williams should’ve disclosed sources of funds as it shows conflict of interest not doing so…. I don’t know where Mr. Williams lied as the Dem’s do.
NCLB is fully funded but some states haven’t spent all the money that was give to them. Then folks like Ted Kennedy and John F. Kerry speak to the American people over and over again LYING to the American people.
Should we have some perspective? We are fighting a set of people who say ANYTHING to tarnish ANYBODY. Where’s that DRAFT that Dem’s were LYING about? Does anybody remember that memo going around college campuses? Who was lying on that one? John F. Kerry picked that mantra up.
I’m not excusing Mr. Williams.
I’m simply pointing out that the Dem’s have more to answer for about messaging. Messaging with lies.
Comment by Baklava — 01.09.05 @ 1:12 am
There are serious problems with the political arguments raised by Steph and tvd but I will ignore them for now. This issue of morality is far too important to just “let go” in favor of dealing with politics.
Christianity is not “about” morality. More accurately, Christianity is not about inducing or enforcing morality. Christianity is the answer to the frightening and horrid implications of morality, in fact. Anyone trumpeting morality (or “values,” whatever those are) as the great good of our religion knows little or nothing of Christianity.
Tvd states this false formulation of Christianity very well: “[T]he only way to salvation is through Christian values.” No! The only way to salvation is through the Christ, who kept the law perfectly on our behalf because we, each and every one of us, have no “Christian values.”
The very idea of moral superiority is so contrary to the Biblical revelation of religion that it is laughable to any Christian. Our lack of moral superiority is the raison d’être for the life, death, and resurrection of the Christ. The result is personal humility and a desire to tell others that we need no longer be enslaved to the drudgery, failure, depression, and condemnation that flow from our natural and universal moral failure.
Perhaps that will clear up some of the gross misunderstanding on the part of Steph and tvd. Please stop being afraid of Christians.
Comment by PlacidPundit — 01.09.05 @ 1:33 am
It’s not a “fine line”… it’s a fat paycheck resulting in a well deserved Blog-lash.
Comment by DANEgerus — 01.09.05 @ 1:33 am
Double Standard alert
Yes, there’s something flaky about a guy with a radio show taking money to push a bill, even if most of the money is for commercials that are obviously commercials. Anytime money changes hands for message there’s something shady. All advertising is s…
Trackback by Mossback Culture — 01.09.05 @ 7:40 am
You’re being too hard on Mr. Williams. The world is full of paid shills for political causes of all sorts, and many of them are fixtures in the Blogosphere: Josh Marshall, Markos Zuniga, Duncan (Atrios) Black, and Oliver Willis among them. They all make their living pushing Democratic Party programs and candidates, and they don’t disclose every dollar that drops in their pockets every day.
Some of them, Oliver Willis for example, even deny that their pay influences their blogging, a bigger lie than which none has been told since “I did not have sexual relations…”
I think there’s a lot less to this story than meets the eye.
Comment by Richard Bennett — 01.09.05 @ 7:43 am
The Left is just gloating over Armstrong Williams’s “conflict of interest” over using “Government Propoganda” disguised as “news”..
I am still not sure if this money was put into his pocket, or the advertising itself.
AndI am irritated but not surprises to see the usual Dem advocates just licking their chops at Williams’s distress.
Yet these same people don’t hesitate to use “big media” for Government propaganda - like the direct involvement of Dem official in introducing CBS people to crazy Texan overe “Guard Gate” memo etc..
I believe Williams used bad judgement. However, I doubt he did anything illegal.
And if any news outlet has a “conflict of interest” - it’s NPR - which takes a hell of a lot of Government money.
So, anytime any “pro Government” “News” occurs on NPR, there are potential “conflicts of interest”.
Like campaign finances, “rules of engagement” are usually useless - the only realistic solution is full disclosure - and Williams has disclosed (perhaps under some pressure) - too late.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 01.09.05 @ 9:03 am
I wonder if what happened could be more common than we know. I remember hearing someone on a radio program [I think it was Tammy Bruce on Michael Medved] say that California NOW got money [$75,000 I think]from some federal department during the Clinton administration for a fictitious non-smoking program. I wonder if Williams or NOW had to submit proposals about what they were going to do and why they needed this amount of money. Or was this just a handshake between friends? I wonder what other money has gone into hands that we don’t know about. Do these departments ever check up to see if the money they spend gets used effectively? It would be nice to know some of these things.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 01.09.05 @ 10:23 am
After reading a bunch about Armstrong Williams’s distress, I have discovered a lack of insight into financial reality by many of the comments.
Advertising (also called propaganda) is a ligitimate business function of any business, including Government.
NCLB is a legitimate Government program - not a “Republican Issue”. In fact, its co-sponsor was Sen Kennedy. And Rod Paige was the “leader” of the program.
Other Government agencies use legally allocated funds to “push” their program.
Advertising of any kind costs money - media and news outlets don’t do it for nothing. Funding can come in many forms.
Advertising sponsored by businesses is one form. Direct payment, as mr Williams accepted, is another.
This is just business. Disclosure is another issue.
Those readers who say “he shouldn’t accept payment” just don’t know much about business - advertising and blogging and news are businesses.
La Shawn pays for her blog. This is a form of advertising. It costs money to put her opinion on the Internet. Yet there is no sceret here.
I also donate to a number of conservative web sites - I am “buying influence” but my Master Card payment is a public record (next time you request a credit report look and see how “private” your financial records are).
Armostrong Williams is a lousy businessman.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 01.09.05 @ 11:11 am
LaShawn, I agree with your position on Armstrong. He should have disclosed his connection to the Education Department.
But there is some hypocracy about to unfold. I’d like to see some exposure of journalists who give fee based speeches to groups and special interests. What about the journalists and opinion leaders who were paid by ENRON to give speeches?
This is a case even worse. I don’t recall but one or more NY Times journalists were paid to give speeches. Now I’m from Texas and I worked in the oil business, and I can assure you they didn’t pay these people to draw a crowd! All this was happening while ENRON was spinning their big lie around financial circles in New York, London and around the world. Who better to have in your pocket than the New York Times editoriial page. Where is the outrage on that?
Comment by Vanyogan — 01.09.05 @ 11:24 am
I give credit to Armstrong for facing the music. He isn’thiding and he isn’t whining about losing his column or any other affects of his actions.
What about CBS 60 minutes doing the Richard Clark interview and book promotion during the 911 hearings. They FAILED TO DISCLOSE that their parent company OWNS the publisher of the book! Where is the outrage on that?
Comment by Vanyogan — 01.09.05 @ 11:39 am
Came here via Powerline (whom I found via Instapundit).
VERY impresive thought processes here.
You just got another bookmark and word of mouth advocate.
Comment by Steven Raines — 01.09.05 @ 11:43 am
Sorry, but I hadn’t heard of Armstrong Williams until recently, or just not paid attention to him. I wonder how many Democrats donate money to “Rainbow PUSH” to get Jesse Jackson to back their plans for the people? I have a feeling that this is not an isolated incident in politics.
Comment by RepJ — 01.09.05 @ 12:12 pm
Sucks
The worst part of the Armstrong Williams flap, to my way of thinking, is that it makes it harder to convince people that the rise of black conservative opinion leaders during the Bush years is a genuine phenomenon. I have no doubt that it is, but this …
Trackback by Yippee Ki Yay! — 01.09.05 @ 12:56 pm
Bush administration peddles propaganda
This is rotten. I’m disappointed in our president. This serves as a reminder that no matter which side of the political spectrum you find yourself on, it’s always necessary to keep a close eye on our politicians.
Trackback by The Cliffs of Insanity — 01.09.05 @ 1:10 pm
More on Journalists and Ethics and Special Treatment
“Journalism” has taken on a new definition with talk radio, cable news, and the Internet.
Full disclosure takes on even more importance, as Armstrong Williams has sadly learned.
But “Journalism” is not a full time job for many, so the “journalism” may be difficult to separate from their “real job” - such as media or dorporate consultant -sucy as NY Times’s Paul Krugman consulting for Enron, or working for some college or think tank as an economist.
But the holier than thou Dems who demand “full disclosure” from Reps like Armstrong Williams often remain silent about their sources - citing “journalistic privilege.
Again, they demand “full disclosure” only for Republicans.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 01.09.05 @ 1:17 pm
Wonderful Post, But…
I flat out don’t understand what difference it makes. What Mr. Gilliard wrote would unquestionably be both obnoxious and racist if he were white. … Please, anyone, enlighten me. Please.
Trackback by Borgard Blog — 01.09.05 @ 2:22 pm
No one else could have expressed my feelings better but I believe the Department of Education owes us, the taxpayers, an explanation.
Comment by Ed Hart — 01.09.05 @ 4:56 pm
To Frank Zavisca and others here that are commenting that this is just advertising, or comparing it to Enron paying for editorials, I want to explain the law.
First you have to realize that this happened before NCLB was law, this was when the administration was trying to convince the public. This was propaganda.
Every year when congress passes the appropriations bills to fund government agencies, they include the publicity or propaganda prohibition. The provision says that government agencies can’t use their money to get involved in the political proccess. Specifically, this provision states,
No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress.1
(You can look up on Thomas the 2003 H.J.Res.2 Div. J, Tit. VI, Section 626)
The reason for this provision should be obvious, the function of government agencies is to run their programs, political debate should be left to congress, the white house and the public.
The real problem is that Bush has a tendency of appointing political ideologues to run government agencies.
Comment by miguel — 01.09.05 @ 5:16 pm
What was done was wrong, but it has been SOP at the federal level since FDR paid “news”men to push the New Deal 71 years ago. It is just another reason why the government is too big which in turn is bad for America.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Comment by Rod Stanton — 01.09.05 @ 5:31 pm
To Miguel:
I didn’t know Armstrong’s arrangement was before NCLB was passed into law.
But “publicity or propaganda prohibition” is almost utopian - by strict interpretation, Government workers shouldn’t be able to write their congressmen etc.. Government workers are among the strongest lobbiers for labor unions.
in Government agencies are part of “the public”.
You say “Bush has a tendency of appointing political ideologues to run government agencies” - YES - he does appoint people who agree with him - who else whoud he appoint?
Again, I believe the law as stated is very difficult to enforce - even if outside funds were directed toward Armstrong with the intervention of Paige, he could still be accused of “lobbying” - but, again, if Paige believed in a program, why wouldn’t he do anything he could to convince others of its value? Advertising is one way.
Perhaps these guys were breaking the rules, but I just can’t believe ALL government agencies don’t have advertising budgets, and that they don’t also do as much as they can get away with to push their pet projects - like NCLB.
Perhaps you are correct about the law, but I dont’ believe it can be enforced fairly.
Comment by Frank Zavisca — 01.09.05 @ 6:15 pm
It’s not the end of the world. The only mistake he made was in not disclosing it sooner. But, then, it is his business, and it didn’t change his point of view, so who cares? This story will die out by next week. In the overall scheme 240k is not a lot of money (Jeez, up here in Canada, hockey players are on strike, after they were offered 240k a month!!)
Comment by Carl Schwartz — 01.09.05 @ 7:26 pm
…fact that he was paid by the Bush camp to push NCLB on his talk show and in his column. Go read the whole thing, and make La Shawn a regular read.
Comment by Thinking Right » La Shawn Lets Armstrong Have It — 01.09.05 @ 8:00 pm
I’m mystified by all the furor. NCLB was a bi-partisan effort with major input by Ted Kennedy. Promoting it helps both parties, especially the Democratic Party who love these huge programs.
Comment by James McGrath — 01.09.05 @ 8:52 pm
I need to know about Armstrong Williams history…where was he born? what schools did he attend…high school, college, etc…??, history of his political career?
thanks..
Comment by david lawrence — 01.09.05 @ 8:58 pm
SNAPPERS
Yesterday’s thread did not imply nor even remotely suggested that I found as objectionable or even questionable any or all of the sites mentioned in that thread (with the exception today of one snapper in the Trackback Section that followed…
Trackback by BIRD — 01.09.05 @ 9:51 pm
LaShawn.
Salute.
Now tell me if you can why George Will, who has had a few instances of conflict of interest, has not had the same thing happend?
Back from a quick trip to the Poconos and catching up. You’re the 1st blog I read.
Comment by DarkStar — 01.09.05 @ 11:24 pm
I know two wrongs do make a right, but every since the election, the liberal left has been venting their anger via every media source from bumper stickers, television shows, news outlets and newspaper. Here in Atlanta, the liberal rag “Atlanta Journal Constitution”, has dropped Bill O’Reilly’s column. As far as I can see, most of these so-called “journalist” are paid consultants for the liberal-left. Even when it is proven, as in the with Paul Begala and James Carville. These two hardcore leftist, paid by CNN were never called to the carpet though they were actively campaigning for John Kerry during the election.
See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17738-2004Sep13.html
Lastly, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been getting paid by the DNC for years. Can you say “Voter Registration” drive?
Comment by Dejuan — 01.09.05 @ 11:26 pm
NCLB, Armstrong Williams, Journalism, and Schools
It took me several days to get over my outrage at the Dept. of Education paying Armstrong Williams to promote No Child Left Behind. Now that I’ve settled down, I can say something. And I want to say something different than what I’ve been reading
Trackback by JennyD — 01.10.05 @ 7:43 am
I’m still trying to figure out what the Education Department did wrong. Obviously deception is wrong, but did they do anything illegal. They wrote a contract with a company for PR services(PR means public relations). That is a legal and probably budgeted endeavor. Don’t they review contracts such as this for legality. When you write a public contract there is no deception. Note that it was disclosed I believe as public information. It’s subject to an audit. Yes somebody is going to look at a 250K contract in an audit.
This happened after NCLB became law. There are benefits in NCLB that have to be claimed by the public. Now consider that the NEA is 100% against this law and are trying at every turn to undermine it. How is the Dept. of Education supposed to get the word out from Washington DC when the local NEA officials want it to go un-noticed?
I don’t have all the detail but I can certainly see how they could have been trapped into justifying “deception”. But unless their promotions were unfactual, how could it be an illegal contract. I find it hard to believe the contract was illegal. All contracts have standard terms and conditions that tend to nollify any illegal specifications.
Unless you have an actual copy of this contract it is impossible to ascertain the INTENT of the Department of Education contract. Press characterisation of it ain’t good enough for me. I have over 20 years experience in the field of purchasing and contracts.
Comment by Vanyogan — 01.10.05 @ 7:45 am
LaShawn, when you write you reply to Bush, consider the damage he’s done to students. I wrote about this today on my own blog and trackbacked to you with it.
I am outraged at Armstrong Williams’ behavior. But I’m even more upset that the Administration has crippled what is actually an important law. NCLB had enough challenges without this.
Anyway take a look if you will.
I love your work. Keep it up.
Comment by JennyD — 01.10.05 @ 7:49 am
Williams-gate fallout: Armstrong apologizes
Reaction to the Armstrong Williams-Department of Education scandal was swift and furious over the weekend, as I wasn’t the only one to make a lot of noise on the issue (LaShawn Barber, Michelle Malkin, Rob Bernard, DC Thornton, Amy Ridenour,…
Trackback by Ramblings' Journal — 01.10.05 @ 7:56 am
Vanyogon -
Section 317 of the [Federal] Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C….requires broadcasters to disclose that matter has been broadcast in exchange for money, service or other valuable consideration. The announcement must be made when the subject matter is broadcast….Section 507 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C….requires that when anyone pays someone to include program matter in a broadcast, the fact of payment must be disclosed in advance of the broadcast to the station over which the [matter] is to be carried. Both the person making the payment and the recipient are obligated to disclose the payment so that the station may make the sponsorship identification announcement required by Section 317 of the Act. Failure to disclose such payments is commonly referred to as “payola” and is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both. These criminal penalties bring violations within the purview of the Department of Justice….
Ergo, Williams was not the only one who is required, by law, to disclose that the William’s broadcast is a paid advertisement. The DOE, Rod Paige and anyone else (like Rod Paige’s Boss) who KNEW that Williams was being paid is in violation of the law and has seriously abused or violated their public trust and duties - which is the modern standard, set in 1998, of “you know what.”
***note to La Shawn - I would have linked to the statute, but you said no links.
Comment by Russell Tupper — 01.10.05 @ 10:12 am
I plan to site all of that stuff, Russell.
Comment by LB — 01.10.05 @ 10:37 am
Armstrong Williams: The Wrong Side (la shawn barber)
Armstrong Williams: The Wrong Side (la shawn barber)
Trackback by Dummocrats.com — 01.10.05 @ 11:13 am
Perhaps this will be a good thing for the conservative black community. This will allow other black conservatives to find each other and enhance the network. AW will likely go into a depression, it could also affect his marriage and personal relationships. He may even consider suicide as many of his supporters turn their backs on him, and as he looses contracts and finances.
This is the kind of thing that can break a man, however it is also the kind of thing that will define the character of a man. He may have made a bad desicion, but he came to the fork in the road and now comes the consequences of the path chosen. His character comes from how his life is in the light of this situation and the way he chooses to deal with it and learn from it.
Many of us do not know AW personally, so we will not be able to have an accurate estimation of his personal character. So how can we determine his character by what he did? Those who cast stones will be the ones revealing theirs.
The best thing for the conservative black community is that AW will be stronger and become more effective as he overcomes this slide down the mountain. This is just a momentary setback and the human spirit will renew and prevail.
Comment by Matthew — 01.10.05 @ 1:38 pm
What’s the fuss about? Williams is not of any real importance on any issue. He has also lied about his sexuality. I see him as no more than a silly, shrill, insignificant and misguided hack. I don’t know why you think the anti-Bush crowd will see anything significant in this. I just hope he pays the money back. He has already said he won’t. That would just make him a brazen shoplifter. But, all in all, his story is just chickenfeed.
Comment by Al — 01.10.05 @ 1:40 pm
Dear La Shawn,
This is the first time I have visited your site. You are obviously very bright and articulate. You began by declaring yourself politically “undeclared” and then declared your allegiance to Christ.
However,the lifeforce in your writing, in this case, seems to carry a spirit that would tend to undercut your Christian declaration. Shouldn’t there be an over-arching love and forgiveness spirit in your position, if you have declared yourself both Christian and politician –not just politician.
Armstrong is certainly in error here, but let’s be careful not to create a “conflict of interest” with Christianity by boldly casting stones. Jesus said it takes a very delicate balance of factors to do so in good conscience. By no means do I suggest you should forgo your gift to produce fire, but do not neglect to nuture your light at every opportunity. Keep on writing!
By the way, for the record only, I am a national representative of a pro-business lobbying association.
Jim
Comment by Jim Allen — 01.10.05 @ 1:43 pm
I’ve been accused of being unloving before, Jim. The realities of love and forgiveness don’t require me to be uncritical of what I see as wrong. It took me awhile to finally understand that, and I don’t think what I’m doing is unloving in any way. Now if you think I should “balance” the piece, that is a different matter. I choose to handle it the way it’s written.
My prayers are firmly with Williams, however. He’ll need them now more than ever. More that just criticizing, loving or forgiving him, I pray for his salvation. He needs that about all.
Comment by LB — 01.10.05 @ 1:48 pm
Armstrong Williams Fallout
I said before that Armstrong Williams made a mistake. I was sort of issuing a challenge to anyone who might argue that he really did something worse than make a mistake. As I’ve looked at other sites, including liberals, moderates,…
Trackback by Parableman — 01.10.05 @ 2:01 pm
Two InstaLanches for one post. EGAD! http://www.techcentralstation.com/011005G.html
Comment by Sissy Willis — 01.10.05 @ 2:20 pm
Guess the truth is a little too hard to take.
Comment by Amengeo — 01.10.05 @ 3:41 pm
No. Rudeness is.
Comment by LB — 01.10.05 @ 3:54 pm
Armstrong Williams
I don’t really care much about the situation with Armstrong Williams. In my view, the man has shown himself to be an idiot. You don’t take money for what you are going to shill for, for free, unless you state…
Trackback by Vision Circle — 01.10.05 @ 8:17 pm
Armstrong Williams
Stop me if you have heard the dig: Black conservatives are Uncle Tom’s who are selling out their people to collect money from the white man. Not true of course. This is just silly way that leftist blacks and certain white liberals shut down debate.
Trackback by A Face Made 4 Radio, A Voice Made 4 the Internet — 01.10.05 @ 9:07 pm
ArmstrongGate
La Shawn Barber and Jon Henke have detailed posts on the Armstrong Williams debacle, and Glenn Reynolds notes the US government’s history of paying off public opinion makers when neccessary dating back to at least the FDR days. I’m not…
Trackback by Ed Driscoll.com — 01.10.05 @ 11:49 pm
Armstrong Williams
Stop me if you have heard the dig: Black conservatives are Uncle Tom’s who are selling out their people to collect money from the white man. Not true of course. This is just silly way that leftist blacks and certain white liberals shut down debate.
Trackback by A Face Made 4 Radio, A Voice Made 4 the Internet — 01.11.05 @ 6:35 am
Great blog. I saw that you linked to carm.org, a site that has served me well before with apologetics. Keep up the great material. Stay strong against the ones that like to hate, especially any that criticize with “Uncle Tom” comments.
-a bro in Him
Comment by James — 01.11.05 @ 7:53 am
Armstrong Williams
This makes me feel disappointed all around:
The White House said Monday that the case of the Education Department paying a conservative commentator to plug its policies …
Trackback by Back of the Envelope — 01.11.05 @ 10:03 am
Follow-up, Re: LB-Unloving/Armstrong — I just don’t think we ought to take him out back and shoot him as we errantly build this thing up to have the potential to cause the decline of the conservative movement. The movement is much bigger than Armstrong will ever be (no disrespect intended to him).
I suggest from the perspective of a Christopolitico, that my heart comes first, because my head issues will be impacted so dramatically by what I allow in or out of my heart and by extension, my mouth. Accordingly, the life-impact ramifications for ourselves and those whose lives we touch are undeniable.
What were his intentions? They certainly appear to be questionable, even he admits that the appearance of things may be troubling to some — but who’s to say what was in his heart? Who knows the heart of a man? The Bible suggests, not even the man himself. I certainly have my opinions though.
Many of us are acting as if “the sky is falling” because of this foolish and selfish misstep on his part. I think the issue is significant, but not ultimately important.
What is important is how do you or I want to be treated when we fail or misstep? Because as sure as you and I were born — it’s coming.
Secondly, and of seemingly greater public significance. Is it possible for Americans to exercise political muscle and express political differences, even justifiable righteous indignation, without tearing each other apart, spiritually and psychologically? Not that you did this — just to extend the argument.
I am not trying to reduce Armstrong’s situation to a simple political stumble either, it’s certainly much more than that — but still — We have to guard our hearts against the disease of self-righteousness, while ably defending the sensibilities and values established in our minds.
I think you are right about “balance” and for the record, I, in no way, mean to suggest that you possess a heart any more diseased than the rest of us.
I do suggest that we do not crucify Armstrong nor make a Barrabas of him, for the sake of the convenience of the occasion. It’s just an ugly mess for him to try to clean up and get on with his life. And, besides there are bigger fish to fry.
By way of full disclosure, when Armstrong premiered “The Right Side” on WOL-AM Washington, in the mid 1990’s, I was the director of news and programming director there. We were cordial and talked often, but were not friends, as such. In fact, we butted heads a time or two, but we worked it out like gentlemen. As I recall,I have not spoken to him since 1998.
I do wish you well and keep rolling!
Jim
Comment by Jim Allen — 01.11.05 @ 10:36 am
The fact Armstrong Williams is a sellout is no suprise. The fact that he was not smarter than this is. At least he does not offer his services on the cheap. Hopefully, he will come to himself, rethink his limited views, and write a book with Jason Blair in a few years.
Comment by WC — 01.11.05 @ 11:30 am
Can’t wait to see who else was paid off, and if it was only limited to NCLB. A lot of administration isssues have been getting a lot of play, some of them are not conservative at all, but still get glowing reviews my conservitave talk radio and newpapers.
Tip of the iceberg I think.
Comment by Peter — 01.11.05 @ 2:58 pm
This is ridiculous. Armstrong’s price was $250,000. The only honest discussion is whether his price was too low.
But let me try and make my point another way: who reading this blog would not secretly promote a government inititive for $50,000?
Next question: what do you do for a living? Work for the Post Office? Fine. And you love walking around in the uniform they make you wear too, don’t you?
Of course, you don’t. But you do it to keep a roof over your head and food on the table.
Look, the Rebublican Party is about getting paid. No one believes in it because it’s the best party for all of the people. They believe in it because it’s the best party for insuring they’ll continue to get paid.
The Democratic Party, now that’s something different. Heavens know what they believe in.
Ricky
Comment by Ricky Land — 01.11.05 @ 6:18 pm
Questioning the integrity of people you don’t even know is bad enough, Ricky. But implying that I would take any amount of money “secretly” is going too far.
You’re a new commenter and, if I should presume, a new reader as well? If so, you should know that I have a low tolerance for insults, implied or otherwise.
Comment by La Shawn — 01.11.05 @ 6:22 pm
Armstrong Williams: More Conservative Self-Flagellation
For days I’ve been resisting the temptation to opine on the Armstrong Williams debacle. Liberals frame this as conservative denial of our own foibles. Perhaps there is a certain degree of truth in this accusation. After all, it’s much more…
Trackback by Villainous Company — 01.13.05 @ 9:24 am
Armstrong Williams, Kos, Spirit of America, & Blogger Ethics
You can tell there’s a hot topic at Instapundit when Glenn Reynolds actually opens up a post for comments. In…
Trackback by Right Wing News — 01.13.05 @ 11:47 pm
Oath-Breakers
In a somewhat misguided reaction to the twin financial scandals currently roiling the Net’s opinion pool (the pay-for-play opinions of Armstrong Williams on the one hand, and the Howard Dean hiring of bloggers on the other, for those of you…
Trackback by Silflay Hraka — 01.15.05 @ 11:43 am
Blogola
I left this response to a comment on TalkLeft (scroll down), but since I’m not sure it went through, I thought I’d go ahead and post it here. Wellston Smith writes: That’s how the GOP operates: They permit nobody to…
Trackback by Electronic Chickens — 01.17.05 @ 6:15 pm
Third Pundit On Government Payroll
Salon’s Eric Boehlert reports that a third columnist, Michael McManus, got a government contract, in addition to Maggie Gallagher and Armstrong Williams. At first, I thought the problem might be restricted to the Education Department, but clearly this…
Trackback by Centerfield — 01.27.05 @ 8:10 pm
We Have a New Sponsor: April Wood, of Discovery Toys!
We’ve got a new sponsor on our site. April Wood, a Discovery Toys educational consultant, is advertising on Myopic Zeal! You will be seeing her banner ads on this site.
The products are great! All educational books, toys, games and puzzles. All…
Trackback by Myopic Zeal — 01.29.05 @ 1:28 pm
Buying A Good Word
The Armstrong Williams situation was a dark day in journalism because it added the specter of paid advertising masquerading as journalism to the news business. Today, Michigan News notes a similar charge that has been raised: Accuracy in Media (AIM) ch…
Trackback by King of Fools — 02.16.05 @ 12:03 pm
Open Letter From The Black Progress Network
(reprinted in full with permission) We are the editors of the Research/Information Portal at http://www.blackprogress.net, which currently features several links to reports, papers, articles, commentaries, critiques, websites/initiatives, etc. that reflect al…
Trackback by Vision Circle — 02.23.05 @ 3:59 pm
Blog-speak
For those of you not fascinated by this relatively new form of news-discussion and dissection, I’d like to confide that I feel I’m a blogging nerd. Yes, a nerd. For my fascination doesn’t merely end in knowing that the words I type are being read by…
Trackback by Down with Absolutes! — 04.09.05 @ 8:10 pm