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.”
