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.
{ 78 comments }
← Previous Comments
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.
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.
No one else could have expressed my feelings better but I believe the Department of Education owes us, the taxpayers, an explanation.
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.
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
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.
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!!)
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.
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..
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I plan to site all of that stuff, Russell.
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.
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.
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
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.
Two InstaLanches for one post. EGAD! http://www.techcentralstation.com/011005G.html
Guess the truth is a little too hard to take.
No. Rudeness is.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 45 trackbacks }