Update: Glenn Reynolds links to the Williams post I wrote yesterday. Very nice to be linked from Tech Central Station. (See the “condemned by many” sentence in the second paragraph.)
Also, Rush Limbaugh is defending Williams. He’s talking about others who get paid. I agree, but that’s not the focus of my post.
—————————————————————————–
Armstrong Williams’s latest column is an apology for accepting a bribe from the Bush Administration to promote education law and influence other journalists to do the same. (Perhaps “bribe” is harsh. I just don’t want the “unethical” part to be missed.)
I’m not sure exactly who he’s apologizing to, but for purposes of this post, I’ll assume he’s talking to me. If you don’t know what I’m referring to, read this post to catch up. (To readers criticizing me for not taking Bush to task as well, that post is coming, so don’t lose any sleep over it. And link liberally. Please.)
Let me say this without further ado. We’d all be first class, grade-A suckers to believe this sort of thing doesn’t happen all the time. (To the people who think I’m some naive hayseed who just fell off the truck, this remark is especially for you.)
We know of at least one thing Williams has done wrong, and that’s all it takes to ruin a career. He acknowledges that his body of work (his columns and other writings) is now discredited:
People have used this conflict of interests to portray my column as being paid for by the Bush Administration.
That’s exactly right. His “mistake” is just more ammunition for attacks from the left. A lifetime of work is now in doubt, although he says it’s never happened before.
Williams provides some background on his deal:
In 2003 Ketchum Communications contacted a small PR firm that I own, Graham Williams Group, to buy ad space on a television show that I own and host. The ad was to promote The Department of Education’s “No Child Left Behind” [NCLB] plan. I have long felt that school vouchers hold the greatest promise of ending the racial education gap in this country.
So why not announce on the show that “this ad was brought to you by…” so people would know that Ketchum was a sponsor? Why conceal the fact, unintentionally or otherwise, knowing it’s bound to be uncovered?
Williams appears to be confused about what a commentator actually does.
I also understand that people must be able to trust that my commentary is unbiased.
He is a commentator, and his commentary is biased. That’s the nature of being a pundit. There is a distinction between a reporter reporting facts and an opinion writer giving you his take on an issue. But when it comes to reporting, I’m beginning to believe there’s no such thing as objectivity anyway. In an interview, Kathryn Lopez, National Review Online editor, said:
The objective media thing is a charade. I’m not sure what the point of pretending otherwise is. We’d have livelier pieces to read and more serious debates, I think, if everyone just became an honest reporter/editor/publication. Report and do it with your slant. Just stop pretending to be doing otherwise.
I agree with her somewhat; however, a reporter should at least try to keep the slant out of the story. Then again, maybe I just fell off that truck after all.
Now I get to the part where I think Williams’s apology really misses the point. He seems to think the problem is accepting money to promote something he already believes in. That’s a senseless statement. I don’t see a problem with taking money to promote something you support or even something you don’t. If it’s your job to promote it, you promote it. He’s way off the mark here.
The point is not that he shouldn’t have taken the money for pushing something he supports; it’s failing to disclose that he was accepting the money. What Williams did was unethical. I’ll get to the illegality of this issue in my upcoming post about Bush and the Department of Education.
Williams continues:
I hope that we can put this mistake behind us, and that I can continue to bring the same unique and impassioned perspective that I brought to this space in the past.
That sounds good, Mr. Williams, but you know the leftists in this country don’t need much to discount conservatives, especially those “of color.” I agree with Casey Lartigue, a former education policy analyst at the Cato Institute. He brings up a number of prescient points about Williams:
Williams is damaged goods. Some people say that black conservatives are on the take — in this case, Williams brings truth to the claim….Others who have done worse things have recovered, but it will tough for Williams for a while. Every time he speaks, his opponents will wonder and sometimes even ask, “Who paid for that statement?” If I were debating him, I’d start off with a line like, “The following statements by Armstrong Williams have been brought to you by…Armstrong, could you finish that sentence?”
I’d do the same thing. Casey adds:
Williams has made himself a permanent footnote in liberal circles. Not only for allegedly selling his opinions, but also for being a hypocrite telling blacks to stop relying on the government while at the same time getting a fat government contract. Whenever anyone liberal writes about black conservatives being sellouts, the $240,000 will be mentioned often.
And it will be mentioned ad nauseam, ad infinitum. Putting Williams officially on the Department of Education’s payroll would have prevented this whole mess.
If I’d done something like this and got caught, my apology would read like this:
I’m a grown woman. I knew what I was doing. I intentionally blurred the line so I could take the money. I support the president’s education law, and this fact alleviated my guilt in taking the 240K. I run a business, but I’m also a journalist in that I report facts, offer my opinion about those facts and seek credibility among my colleagues and my readers.I have no one to blame but myself, despite having bills to pay and the Department of Education waving a check in my face. I had choices to make and made the wrong ones. Regaining credibility will be difficult. Some will not accept this apology. They will use this one episode to dismiss anything else I have to say or write. Those are the consequences I face, and I will face them honorably. My good name was all I had, and I am deeply disappointed for letting down my readers.
Or something like that.
For what it’s worth to you, Mr. Williams, I accept your apology.
Update II: Michelle Malkin: “Williams’ apology is terribly disingenuous. First, he mischaracterizes the nature of his contract. It wasn’t just about running “a paid ad” on his TV show. It was about going on other TV shows and pushing No Child Left Behind, interviewing Secretary of Rod Paige about the NCLB, and urging others to do the same — and failing to disclose his payoff all the while.”
Transcript of Williams on CNN.
Update III (1/11): Junk YardBlog: “[N]o administration should be paying opinion makers to stealthily promote its agenda. And no opinion maker should enter into such a relationship with any administration. It’s unethical. And the “Democrats do this all the time” excuse, while true, doesn’t make it right. In fact, Democrats probably don’t enter into relationships that, strictly speaking, resemble the Williams payola situation because they don’t have to. With dozens of partisan Democrats occupying posts all around the media, the party itself doesn’t have to lift a finger most of the time: Its apologists already know the notes and stand ready to sing the tune….None of which mitigates Williams’ actions.”
{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 28 comments }
La Shawn,
Do you think anything will come of this scandal? I haven’t read anything more about it over the weekend.
FYI – Your column on this subject was linked over at Hugh Hewitt’s site.
La Shawn,
I like Armstrong Williams, and I hate to see him get into a mess like this. I am not sure whether he just didn’t percieve it as a problem, or whether he deliberately set out to mislead. I wonder if he felt initially that full disclosure might water down the message he was putting out, when it was something he strongly believed in?
Regardless, it gives credence to liberal’s claims that black conservative commentators are just paid mouthpieces for the administration, and that type of thing could have been minimized at the outset by full disclosure.
By the way, based on the liberal perception, I guess you are STILL waiting on that check
As I’ve said before, Williams made a mistake. People will perceive this the way you’re saying, and I know you don’t mean to be saying that they should be justified in doing so, but it sounds that way. When I read your first post on this, and now again when reading your this one, it just seems to me that you are making it sound as if it’s ok for people to say that he was on the take in the sense of being paid to hold his opinions. It’s not ok to say that. It’s immoral to say that. It’s immoral for people to use him as an example to say that black conservatives are all on the take. It’s immoral even to use it to say that Bush paid him to have the opinions he had. It’s immoral not just because it’s racist. It would be immoral if they said it about him and he were white. It’s called slander and libel. I encourage you in the future to make it clear that you don’t think this justifies people to misreport his connection with the Department of Edcuation as merely accepting a bribe from Bush or to slander/libel him or other black conservatives. He made a mistake in allowing people to have something that they will misuse in this way. You’re right to point out that that’s a consequence of this. What I haven’t seen you doing is criticizing those who have misused this, which I think is the more important issue than criticizing him, since he apologized. They haven’t.
LaShawn,
The liberals love to point to faults of such people as
Bill Bennett (losing money in gambling) and Armstrong
Williams for accepting money (checks?) for promoting NCLB.
You are sincere and dedicated Christian and conservative!
Your Christian principles rank above any political principles. What Armstrong Williams did or maybe more for not telling of payment was wrong. The not telling of payment was worst then the taking of money. Forgive my convoluted English.
JMB
My first little disagreement with La Shawn,
While Mr. Williams should’ve disclosed what he received or not received at all…….
….. my feeling is that the left has footnotes on everybody including those who haven’t done anything wrong. Here are some examples:
1) Gonzales – He is the reason for Abu Graib according to the left
2) Rumsfeld – He is the reason men are dying according to the left
3) Bush – He knew and let it happen to take away our civil liberties according to the left
4) Fox News – Mouthpiece for the right according to the left
Everyone of these above things isn’t true.
And I agree with Jeremy Pierce that Armstrong wasn’t being paid to have an opinion. Armstrong already had his opinions about vouchers and this and that. A
Mr. Williams neither changed his opinion nor did he lie about facts (as the Democrats do). He simply disseminated.
Now let us get on the business of setting the record straight because the left is on the march with misinforming and mischaracterizing and slandering people.
Mr. Wiliams wrote,
Dear readers:
In 2003, I agreed to run a paid ad on my syndicated television show, promoting the Department of Education’s No Child Left Behind Act. I subsequently used my column space to support that legislation. This represents an obvious conflict of interests. People have used this conflict of interests to portray my column as being paid for by the Bush Administration. Nothing could be further from the truth.
———————————–
Geez. Nobody can accept advertising dollars and then subsequently talk about an issue that they’ve already frequently talked about?
I may be a little hard headed but look at any other station like CBS, NBC, ABC for their content and commercials aired from John Kerry and company and then subsequent messaging.
Mr. Williams wrote,
I accept full responsibility for my lack of good judgment. I am paying the price. Tribune Media has cancelled my column. And I have learned a valuable lesson. I just want to assure you that this will never happen again, and to ask for your forgiveness.
————————————
Where is the assurances from those on the left that their message won’t be full of untruths anymore? Mr. Williams actually didn’t lie and the left is lying everyday. Just turn on CNN right now you can catch 3 or 4 lies in the next minute. They report things as truth and it’s not.
I get so mad listening to these people report things that are untrue as if they were. Media Research Center needs to be 10 times bigger than it is. Ratherbiased should be covering all anchors all the time. Patterico should be covering more than just the LA Times inadequacies.
And we should not be giving ammo to the left by intimating that Mr. Williams was being paid to have opinions. It isn’t true …
We cannot convict someone in the court of the press for something that we think they believe. I don’t think Mr. Williams was saying something he didn’t believe. He wrote subsequent columns and I believe what he wrote was consistent with what he felt in the past and still believes.
LB, Baklava, both good points/posts. To me, this just gives the an example to the left that they don’t need to make up or exagerate about.
That being said, they will exagerate about it, anyway. Big time. If this gets legs, the next time education spending comes up on the hill, or at the midterm elections, this will be spun as Clancy worthy conspiracy to screw the children of America.
Look, people, I have nothing against Williams taking the money. And please read my post carefully if you’re going to comment on it. Whether or not he supports the policy is NOT THE ISSUE. A journalist, pundit, whatever you call yourself, should DISCLOSE the fact that they’re on the government payroll to promote the policy.
Even if you believe Williams did nothing wrong, he obviously thinks he did. Why do you think he’s apologizing, for crying out loud??? Don’t tell me about it. Write him and tell him he has nothing to be sorry about.
Baklava, I would disagree on the lying element. Assuming he didn’t want people knowing the source, he very much did lie by his silence. Political and government advertizements are normally flagged as such. He didn’t do that. I don’t think that’s the government’s fault. I think it’s his. He has acknowledged that. That was the only problem with what he did, but it is a problem, and the normal response to the advertizements as they were aired would be the assumption that the government didn’t pay for it, which is false. In that sense, it’s lying.
I’m saying this as someone who thinks leaving the lights on when you leave home for the evening is also lying, and therefore lying isn’t always wrong. That doesn’t mean it’s not lying. It’s a deliberate attempt to deceive. Now I’m not sure Williams was trying to deceive. If he wasn’t, then it’s not lying. The jury is still out on that. I’ll accept his word on it unless he’s shown wrong. My point is that omissions can count as lying.
LB wrote, “Even if you believe Williams did nothing wrong, he obviously thinks he did. Why do you think he’s apologizing, for crying out loud??? ”
LB, he did do something wrong as my posts say also. I thought he did something wrong before he issued an apology because I know right from wrong.
ANd I believe it’s wrong for the government funded PBS to advocate daily and hourly for a larger government. While we are at it, I believe it’s wrong for the Government to have to pay to get thier message out anyway. I believe reporters should be reporting the truth and then the government wouldn’t have to pay to overshout the message over CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN.
I as a conservative do not believe the government should have to pay to get their message out. People should read the legislation for themselves or be able to TRUST reporters are accurately reporting what is in a bill or what each set of legislatures are trying to do.
You have idiots out there calling Bush’s first time a president ever funded stem cell research a “ban” and here we are lambasting someone when he ADMITTED he was wrong and apologized. He didn’t lie did he? That’s my point.
Pierce wrote, “very much did lie by his silence.”
I’ll agree with you there. But he cleared it up by admitting and apologizing.
My point about the lying is that I don’t know of anyone of his political messages that were a lie.
Well, La Shawn, we must keep perspective. And what I mean by that is that when you boil it down, the real issue is whether he sold his services for a respectable amount.
For example, were you offered $250,000 to promote the government’s education plan here in your blog, would you hesitate one second?
Ricky
http://blawger.net
(Blawgers Cafe)
http://blacklogs.com
(Black Bloggers Association)
LaShawn:
You call the issue one of “bribery”. This is way too strong a position. How is this any different from a personal endorsement by a sporting icon in favor of some breakfast cereal. Unlike the sports endorsement, it appears that Mr. Williams was an enthusiastic supporter of NCLB. With the Left driving hard to promote Black victimhood on every available channel. It seems like a good thing to pay to have it promoted, particularly in the face of the universal condemnation of the Bill by the Left in general and one of the bill’s authors in particular.
Ramrod
I guess you skipped over the part where I wrote, “Perhaps ‘bribe’ is harsh.”
I’d take that 250k, for promoting what I already promote. But I would also disclose the money, and in brief, what I am doing with it.
To me, the biggest change is that Williams is now under fire from both the left AND the right. And the fact that his credibility is very damaged.
LB, You’re absolutely right that there should have been full and repeated disclosure. And Baklava, “ditto” to just about everything you posted.
An hour or two ago, I heard Neal Boortz telling a radio show caller (re, a discussion about Armstrong Williams) that he, Boortz, had never similarly taken a dime to promote any program or product. I believe him.
But shortly thereafter, Mr. Boortz read the radio copy for one of his program sponsors, offering his listeners a month’s free service for trying it out (I think it was “Go to my PC”). He said, ‘I use it, I love it,’ etc. That’s a commercial and a paid-for personal endorsement, of course. I know it’s a paid endorsement of a product/service (which he presumably uses and likes). But he didn’t SAY SO.
In the mid and late 1960’s, I worked as an advertising agency copywriter. Often, when doing ad copy for live radio, the spots were written with some variation of an announcer in effect giving a personal endorsement. The one and only objection I’m aware of (and obliged), was from a White Sox Park game announcer, who requested future copy omit his ‘personal claim’ to better sleep because of our mattress client. Does that suggest that dozens (or hundreds) of other announcers have lower ethics or lack character? I don’t think so.
My point is, in writing copy for a client, I would think of and probably treat the Dept of Ed the same as Fanny Mae Candy or Cap’n Crunch. Obviously, there is a difference in the listener’s perception — that is, when a radio personality talks up a candy bar, breakfast cereal or mattress, the listener knows it’s probably a paid commercial even though the announcer doesn’t necessarily say so.
Talking up the No Child Left Behind Act – or any government program/policy – would not necessarily be perceived or interpreted as paid commercial advertising. But that does not automatically mean that the copywriter, the announcer or the Department of Ed were being disingenuous.
A client is a client. Had I been doing NCLBA copy prior to this Armstrong Williams incident, I don’t think a potential “conflict of interest” allegation would even occur to me. If Mr. Williams had an inkling it might be perceived that way, I have no doubt he would have made a point of disclosing the commercial sponsorship. It may seem clear in retrospect, but that’s because we’re looking at it through a wider lens.
LIGHTER SIDE NOTE: LB, in your first blog on this, you mentioned that Rush Limbaugh had disclosed he was an unpaid advisor to the Bush Administration. He did indeed state that, but not as an ethical disclosure — he was not a Bush advisor. He was tweaking liberals about the James Carville and Paul Begala paid consultancy to the Kerry campaign while they were both employed by CNN.
CBS
THERE ARE A MILLION SLEEZERS IN THE NAKED CITY AND C…BS IS JUST ONE OF THEM.
GOOD COLUMN AND EJOYABLE.
LH
LaShawn, once again you did a brilliant job in your declaration. I agree with you wholehearted on this one. Armstrong was wrong for his action and now he has to face the consequences. Regardless of color, race, and etc we have to whole the same ethical standard across the board. As a black male conservative we can’t preach one thing and turn around and do the exact opposite. That’s a hypocrite! I do accept his apology for what is worth.
And for some your readers please read her post carefully, the left has nothing to do with this. Did the left conspire with Tribune Media Service to drop his column…Get real!!!
Well, Gee, it isn’t like he hid Top Secret documents in his socks, and stole them from the National Archives.
The media would really be upset about something like that.
Listen to what Mark Twain said “Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more”.
Mark Twain (1835 – 1910)
Call me naive but I didn’t even know this was unethical. How else is the Bush administration supposed to get their ideas some publicity? We all know that the MSM both television and newspapers are going to take the other side of any issue that the administration does. Somebody please tell me who is supposed to promote the Presidents agenda?
People on this thread are either missing my point or not reading the post altogether. Putting ideas before the public is exactly what anybody pushing an agenda does.
The problem is Williams’s NON-DISCLOSURE that he was on the administration’s payroll. That may seem like a minor detail to some (or overlooked by those who comment without reading the post), but it goes to the heart of credibility and some semblance of journalistic standards.
Regardless of how one parses Mr. Williams apology, the fact is he did feel he made a mistake, and has now apologized for that fact. Again, in the overall scheme of things 240k is peanuts, when we think of how much money was spent in the last election. Nobody is perfect, and that fact the he didn’t disclose something based on what he already believes in is no problem at all for me. When you compare this to the millions paid out to Demo consultants from MoveOn and the Kerry campaign, this pales into insignificance
OK people. All I was asking for was perspective. We know Mr. Williams did wrong. Mr. Williams admitted and apologized for doing wrong. His column has been cancelled by a newspaper.
Can we move on or do we have to talk as Dcthornton has done as if Mr. Williams himself received $250,000? Mr. William’s PR firm received the money. His firm has expenditures besides Mr. Williams’ own salary. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH Mr. Williams himself received. Nor can we point out anywhere where Mr. Williams has lied which seems to be alleged by other posters
Injustice is what tees me off. I perceive this as a little bit of unjustice when people talk about OTHERS incorrectly. A month or so ago people talked about Michelle Malkins incorrectly. They said things that couldn’t be proven to be true and/or had to be a stretch based on what she actually did write.
How about those people that actually lie be held MORE accountable like journalists/reporters on the left who ASSERT things that aren’t true.
Let’s move on that.
I meant Malkin not Malkins
Full disclosure was the way to go – nothing inherently wrong in my view save that.
Mr. Williams should have realized that the bar is substantially higher for conservatives – especially minority ones.
Well, I’m amazed by the large number of your readers who do not understand why secretly accepting bribes is a bad thing.
It’s called deception, and news programs aren’t allowed to do that, because taxes pay for part of their broadcasts. You don’t mind paying somebody to lie, as long as it’s a lie you like, is that it?
Comments on this entry are closed.