Update (2/9): More on Hannity from Debbie Schlussel.
———————————————————————-

I usually don’t get involved with other bloggers’ problems, but I’m making an exception today.

Debbie Schlussel is one of my favorite bloggers. A resident of Michigan, she does first-hand reporting on what’s going on with the large Muslim community in her area and publishes exclusives on her blog and in her column, which sometimes appears in the New York Post.

In her latest column, “An Ugly Invocation,” she wrote about Husham al-Husainy, a Muslim imam who delivered the invocation at the Democratic National Convention. Debbie has done extensive background research on this man and has even attended Islamic events undercover to expose al-Husainy’s terrorism-supporting views. More here.

For the past couple of days, Sean Hannity has been talking about this issue on “Hannity & Colmes.” Debbie has accused Hannity of citing her work without giving her credit. Since some of her information is exclusive, it’s obvious where he’s getting his information.

I don’t watch Hannity’s show or listen to him on the radio because I find him too frenetic (esp. when speaking to callers). That aside, if he’s reporting on al-Husainy and lifting material from Debbie’s exclusives without citing her work, it’s plagiarism.

Debbie has documented her attempts to get Hannity and his producer to clear up the whole thing by having her on the air to talk about and defend her work or at the very least, to credit her as a source. She writes (emphasis added):

The first night, Tuesday Night, I contacted Sean on his cellphone. He was, as usual, “too busy” and couldn’t be bothered to do the right thing. He admitted he knew he used my work uncredited, and I managed to get him to promise to have me on to discuss my original work, he said, “if we talk about this again on the show.” I also suggested having Al-Husainy, himself, on along with myself, since I’m only the single commentator who actually knows something–actually, a lot–about him. Sean promised that if they had the imam on, he and John Finley would have me on, too.

But, as is usual for Sean these days, he did not keep his word. Last night, not only did they rip my work off again, but they questioned it (without mentioning my name or allowing me to be on to defend it). Suddenly, Hannity was saying Al-Husainy “reportedly” was at pro-Hezbollah rallies, and Colmes claimed, “We’ve been unable to confirm that,” and questioned my New York Post column’s accuracy.

Well, that’s interesting to me–they never attempted to “confirm” this in the least. Since I’m the source of the info–I WAS THERE AT THOSE RALLIES and wrote about it in the New York Post column they ripped off–why didn’t they contact me? I have pictures, etc.

I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be to do all the leg work for a story, only to have someone, especially a fellow conservative, steal from you. Debbie isn’t making any headway with Hannity or the producer, so I wanted to raise awareness about what’s going on. As Debbie mentioned, conservatives supposedly are big property rights supporters. Well, intellectual property counts, too.

Sometimes the issue of whether someone plagiarized is fuzzy. Other times, it’s crystal clear. If Sean Hannity’s information about the terrorism-supporting imam was obtained from Debbie’s work, and if he didn’t cite Debbie’s work, it’s plagiarism.

Shame on you, Sean. But it’s not too late to make amends.

I used to work for an organization with “connections” to then-Council Member Adrian Fenty, currently the newly elected mayor of the District of Columbia. This high-profile op-ed almost got me in trouble at the day job, and this direct response from Fenty (who didn’t know me from Adam) made them even more nervous.

My libertarian pal Casey Lartigue responded to Fenty’s letter here.

While at that day job, I was itching to write about local politics but couldn’t. Since leaving, the itch went away. Now it’s back. I’ve decided to blog more city government and what I don’t like about it.

For instance, after reading this Washington Post story, “D.C. Schools Considering Unusual Deal With Nonprofit,” I was shocked to learn that neither the Post nor any other major newspaper seemed concerned that EdBuild, a non-profit formed and operated by elected officials, is on the verge of landing a fat, no-bid government contract ostensibly to improve academic performance in schools and modernize facilities, for which is has very little experience, although more qualified companies were rejected. There is a $2.3 billion pot at stake. EdBuild’s founders served in Mayor Williams’s administration, and Fenty just hired one to serve in his. The connections are deep, yet no one is raising ethical or conflict of interest objections.

So I did a bit of investigating of my own and wrote “The EdBuild-D.C. government connection.”

If you have information on insider dealings and political connections between the D.C. government and EdBuild or other organizations, e-mail me in confidence: barbersview [at] yahoo [dot] com.

More to come…

Update III (12/22 @ 12:45 p.m.): Looks like Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans won’t face charges of rape. Ding-dong Mike Nifong dropped the rape charges. But kidnapping and sexual offense charges stand. (???) This post is closed to commenting, so please visit the latest post to discuss the good news: DUKE RAPE CHARGES DROPPED!

Every bit of exposure helps. Thanks.

Update: First-time or new readers may be interested in my Duke Rape Case archives (going back to April – sometimes the “Next Page” link at the bottom left of the middle column doesn’t show up in the IE browser unless you move the cursor near the small dash) and two columns I wrote for Townhall, The Most Absurd Rape Story of the Year (original title) and Scottsboro Revisted.
———————————————————————————————–
Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.

I’ve written an op-ed about the latest developments in the Duke “rape” case that I hope will be published at National Review Online this week or early next week. In the meantime, I wanted to highlight a few new items.

It’s becoming incredibly obvious to anyone with sense that Durham County district attorney Mike Nifong is a rogue prosecutor, at least when it comes to the so-called case against the indicted Duke lacrosse team players. At last Friday’s hearing, Brian Meehan (pictured), director of DNA Security, the private lab that analyzed DNA found in and on the stripper-accuser, admitted, under oath, that he and Nifong agreed to suppress evidence favorable to the defense.

As I mentioned in this post, Meehan’s lab found that DNA from the stripper-accuser’s body and clothes matched multiple unidentified males. See defense’s Motion to Compel Discovery: Expert D.N.A. Analysis (PDF), filed last Wednesday. The motion is chilling enough, but Meehan’s testimony is downright unbelievable. When grilled by the defense attorney, he offered weak explanations why he failed to include exculpatory information in his final report and admitted that failing to do so violated his laboratory’s protocol.

According to the motion, and supported by the attachments, the lab was quite faithful in reporting any hint of a match with lacrosse players, no matter how miniscule, and quite negligent, to put it mildly, in reporting findings that ruled out the lacrosse players.

Nifong violated his professional ethics and procedures and broke several laws, and I believe the case likely will be dismissed before it goes to trial. Why has Nifong gotten away with this? Why isn’t Durham’s legal community outraged and embarrassed by Nifong? Do the black Duke professors who judged the lacrosse players guilty realize the same kind of railroading can (and does) happen to black defendants under Nifong’s watch? Even liberal and feminist Susan Estrich says, “Duke Justice Demands Nifong’s Removal.” I say a lot more in my op-ed, so stay tuned.

By the way, a reader e-mailed to ask if I’d seen a floor plan of 610 N Buchanan, the “rape” house. I have not. If anyone has a link to an online version, please forward.

KC Johnson, who attended last Friday’s hearing, has immersed himself in the case and he has much, much more.

Other “Duke” bloggers: John in Carolina, Right Angles, LieStoppers, The Johnsville News, Crystal Mess…

Joe at Joe’s Dartblog posts a letter from a Duke alum. More from Power Line.

Sources:

• It’s Time to Be Honest About Duke: “The problem with the blind allegiance to the alleged victim in this Duke case is that there will come a time in which an African-American woman WILL be raped in the future. She WILL need the support of the African-American community and WILL deserve justice…And it won’t be there for her, because ‘we’ spent all of our morality money and credibility elsewhere in an incredulous way.”
• Video of stripper-accuser pointing to three random photos
• The Worst Worsens (Thomas Sowell)
• Lab chief: Nifong said don’t report all DNA data
• District Attorney Mike Nifong on Trial
• Duke Rape Case Update

Soon-to-be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is wielding her unwieldy power. She wants Congressman John Murtha to be House Majority Leader and Congressman Alcee Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee.

Remember when I told you I was going to enjoy watching and blogging Democrats’ missteps? Well, the circus has begun. (More peanuts, please!)

Murtha and Hastings are a couple of crooks. And liberals love crooks!

The more corrupt the politician, the more they want him. The more bribes he’s accused of accepting, especially bribes caught on tape, the more they must have him on their team.

Remember “Abscam”? Back in the late 1970s, FBI agents set up a sting operation posing as Arab sheiks from Saudi Arabia who sought U.S. asylum. A senator, six congressmen, and others were involved, including Murtha. He turned down the bribe and wasn’t indicted or convicted. Blogger Patterico watched the Abscam tape, and the evidence seems to show that although Murtha turned down the bribe at that time, he was very interested in continuing the process, but the scandal was exposed. Read Patterico’s post and you’ll see how involved Murtha was. “The guy is dirty,” indeed.

Alcee Hastings, member of the Congressional Black Caucus, is a disgraced and impeached former federal judge. Tried for bribery, a jury found him not guilty, but his judicial colleagues wanted his sorry butt out. Hastings was impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate for bribery and perjury in 1989. He ran for Congress, and the rest his history. His biography makes no mention of his crookedness. How odd!

Hastings has led a relatively quiet existence in the House, but thanks to Pelosi, he’s back in the national spotlight. A known crook is going to have access to national secrets.

Although Congresswoman Jane Harman is next in line to chair the House Intelligence Committee, Pelosi is passing her over for Hastings, a less senior man. Will feminists raise a stink? Probably not, methinks. Of all the people at her disposal, why would Pelosi willingly choose corrupted men like Murtha and Hastings to lead? Well, I suppose the little woman is doing her best.

While it’s fun to make fun of Democrats, I believe most politicians are corrupt. It’s the nature of the game.

Where are the honorable men?

Bloggers: Dan Riehl, Democracy Project, Ed Morrissey (and here), Anchor Rising, Hot Air, Ed Cone, Michelle Malkin (with videos!), James Joyner…

Sources:

• Dick Morris makes the case that while ultra-liberals are in charge of things, it was the recent wave of newly elected moderate Democrats who made them leaders.
• Meet the New Boss
• In Backing Murtha, Pelosi Draws Fire
• Murtha decries ‘swift boat-style’ attacks on ethics
• Unfit for Majority Leader
• Ethics already at issue for House Democrats
• How Democrats Clean House

Update III (3:13 p.m.): Were Foleygate IM messages part of a prank??? Regardless, nobody forced Foley to write them…

Update II: Thanks for the bone, Mr. Speaker.

One of my “blog children” has this to say about the scandal: “I’ve been purposely maintaining silence on the Mark Foley debacle until it started to die down a little. To be blunt, I’m sick of hearing about it, and I’m sure everyone else is too. As a result, I’m not going to link to any outside material, and this post is the last I’ll have to say about it.”

Update: Welcome to the Internet, A Tutorial for Reporters

In other news: Oooooooh…
———————————————————-

The blogosphere can be a fun and heady place. It can also be backbiting and libelous terrain. However humble were blogging’s beginnings, the medium has morphed into a powerful display of citizen journalism, capturing the essence of free speech.

The blogosphere is like a massive organism, a global publication teeming with millions of “pajama” reporters breaking stories and connecting people. It’s no wonder legacy media organizations like ABC News added blogs to their online offerings. Under the old model, they couldn’t keep up.

Thanks to cable television, the world is in a 24-hour news cycle rhythm, and the old days of morning and evening news cycles are over. We’re news junkies, and we want our news on demand. If we can’t find it, we now have the power to make it ourselves. With a low entry threshold and open source software (Blogger.com) and fast and relatively cheap tools and connections (computers; digital cameras; digital recorders; broadband), so-called citizen journalists have sprung up everywhere.

The blogosphere is still unruly, but that will change. Bloggers — and anyone else who publishes information — are held accountable for their words. Some are being sued for defamation. And losing. With power comes responsibility.

Because people can go after whatever story they want and pursue whatever angle they wish, that’s exactly what they do. Some conservative bloggers are keeping the focus on “our yard,” while others are going after the media and the Democrats. I frankly don’t care what part Democrats played in all this. Mark Foley is a predator, and it doesn’t matter who exposed him or that a “fake blog” was set up for that purpose. Foley’s perversion — and Republican House leaders’ complicity in sweeping it under the rug so they could hold on to House seats — are the only things I care about.

Pictured above are Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives (flash of integrity?); John Boehner, House Majority Leader; Tom Reynolds, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee; and John Shimkus, House Page Board chair. Each of these men hold leadership positions, and each knew about Foley. ALL FOUR SHOULD RESIGN.

For details on who know what and when, see Mr. Speaker, You Must Resign.

Some bloggers are busily gathering information on the man behind a homosexual outing blog. It’s exciting, in a sometimes perverse way, to dig and expose the shenanigans of the other side. But I wish more conservative bloggers would concentrate on holding House leaders accountable and less on what leftist bloggers knew.

Well, it turns out that Democrats may not have been behind this after all. The Hill reports that a Republican aide passed on the e-mails to a member of the media.

Other developments:

• Someone’s alleged that Foley showed up drunk outside the page dorm.
• Foley’s former chief of staff Kirk Fordham, who recently resigned as Tom Reynolds’s chief of staff, says he warned Republican House leaders about Foley in 2003.
• Apparently, there’s some sort of “gay list” of Republicans floating around.

Those are the major revelations. More to come, I’m sure.

Addendum: A blogger, who I won’t link to, publicized the name of one of the pages. (Why???)The page has hired a lawyer. Will he sue the blogger for invasion of privacy? As I said, power and responsibility…
———————————————————————————————
Bloggers: JustOneMinute, Macsmind, Strata-Sphere (and here), Wizbang, Hot Air, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Riehl World View…

Also see:

• See Part I — How to Avoid a Blogosphere Scandal: Disclose!
• Part II — How to Avoid a Blogosphere Scandal: Don’t Plagiarize!

I’m not a big fan of the anonymous (or pseudonymous) blogger or commenter.

I blog under my name, spreading controversial ideas and unorthodox opinions that people like me usually don’t write about or utter in public.

Every now and then something I write generates a wave of dissent throughout the blogosphere. A couple of weeks ago, I endured the wrath of homosexual bloggers and commenters because I dared use the word homosexual in a less than favorable context. I used to think black liberal dissenters were the worst sort. I was wrong on so many levels. Tolerance is a word entirely devoid of meaning in this PC age, and those demanding it of others the loudest don’t practice it themselves. Hypocrisy and irony come to mind.

Last year I was called “anti-Catholic” because I made biblical assertions in reference to the recently departed Roman Catholic pope (at the request of Catholic readers, ironically), and several bloggers “de-linked” me. And the usual self-hater, race traitor rhetoric almost always sent by people using obviously phony names, appears in my inbox from time to time, though less frequently than it used to.

It takes nerve to write what I write and use my real name online, a virtual world inhabited by all sorts, including perverts, maniacs, and just plain old bored fools who get off cyber-harassing others. Don’t take it personally, anonymous bloggers and commenters, but my online experiences have biased me against anonymity, especially from commenters who do nothing but criticize my views.

For these and other reasons, I admire people who blog under their real names. But I understand why some don’t or can’t use their real names. Perhaps they’re whistleblowing employees trying to expose nefarious acts and avoid reprisal at the same time. Others may be concerned about their physical safety or worried that an idiot scoundrel will post their home addresses on the web. Some bloggers use their blogs as online journals, writing about their jobs, relationships, and other issues, and don’t want to be fired or hurt friends and family.

Although I believe people should stand behind what they say, write, and do with their real names, there are exceptions, of course. But one thing that’s unacceptable is taking on a different persona with the intent to deceive.

Sockpuppetry

The sock puppet is the anonymous commenter’s cousin. When someone comments on a blog, pretending to be someone else rather than merely commenting anonymously, it’s considered sockpuppetry. For example, let’s say I responded to a La Shawn-hating blogger’s nasty post in his comment section and pretended to be a “friend” or supporter of La Shawn’s. That’s sockpuppetry.

When discovered committing sockpuppetry, the person usually is subject to ridicule. Unless the sock puppet is using a proxy or surfing anonymously through some other method, it’s pretty easy to tell if the same person is leaving comments under different names. The clever sock puppet and/or a geek knows how to avoid detection; the rest don’t. The same IP address will be attached to all comments, which indicates the person is using the same computer or home or business network.

Personal Note

I wish I could say I’ve never done this, but I have. On an Air America discussion board last year, I posted a link to a controversial post on my blog that was related to the discussion. I used a different name but left my real e-mail address. Someone googled it, traced it back to me, and played the gnat buzzing around my head for weeks.

In my own defense, I didn’t adopt a different persona. The topic had nothing to do with me, so it wasn’t a sockpuppetry defense. But it wasn’t a mere anonymous comment, either. I used an alias because I didn’t want to be accused of fishing for readers, which is exactly what I was doing. Lesson learned.

Recent Scandals

The following people have been accused of sockpuppetry. I make no claims about whether some accusations are true:

John Lott — Several years ago, someone using the name “Mary Rosh” began appearing on the web, defending John Lott, author of The Bias Against Guns, in Usenet groups and writing favorable reviews of his books. Lott’s pro-gun books were controversial in their own right, but his “Mary Rosh” facade provided more grist for the mill. All it took was a few geeks to uncover the truth: Lott was most likely Mary Rosh. He eventually confessed.

Related:

• Sockpuppetry (Wikipedia)
• Who is Mary Rosh?
• The Mystery of Mary Rosh
• John Lott’s unethical conduct

Michael Hiltzik — Blogger Patterico exposed this Los Angeles Times columnist and one-time blogger as a sock puppet. Patterico’s niche is fact-checking the paper, and Hiltzik appeared under various aliases to defend his and the newspaper’s work and criticize Patterico.

One would think that people pretending to be someone else and/or leaving nasty comments would know all about IP addresses. You should see some of the filth left on this blog by people commenting from their work computers. Bird-brains.

With a little IP checking, Patterico realized that “people” leaving comments under the name “Mikekoshi” and several other aliases were doing so from the same computer. And get this: Hiltzik used his work computer. He was suspended briefly from the newspaper, and lost his business column and blog gig.

Related:

• LA Times Discontinues Reporter’s Column

Glenn Greenwald — Several bloggers accused liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald of sockpuppetry. Leading the charge were Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom, Ace of Spades, and Patterico. Commenters defending Greenwald under different names did so in a similar fashion. For instance, they mentioned his best-selling book, that he became a popular blogger very quickly, that a United States senator quoted his blog in Senate hearings, etc. Other bloggers noticed that “Thomas Ellers,” “Ellison,” “Wilson,” and others left similar comments from the same IP address, a provider in Brazil, where Greenwald lives.

Greenwald denied the sock puppet charges.

There are other sockpuppetry accusations floating around, but those are the most recent and most well-known.

Astroturfing

If anonymous commenting is sockpuppetry’s cousin, astroturfing is its brother. Astroturfing is a mainly business blogging phenomenon. The typical context: a company asks its employees to leave favorable comments about its products or clients’ products on blogs and discussion boards, playing the role of satisfied customer. It’s a form of viral marketing that just doesn’t work in the blogosphere. Bloggers fancy themselves “transparent” and place great emphasis on open and genuine conversations in the age of citizen journalism and social media. When a public relations flack tries to infiltrate the blogosphere and manipulate opinion based on deception, they’re in for it.

Pierce Mattie PR — A beauty blogger named Jackie Danicki accused the PR firm of using minions (employees?) to leave favorable comments on beauty blogs, pretending to be customers. PR blogger Steve Rubel and others reported the story. The president of the company responded on Rubel’s blog.

Related:

• Astroturfing (Wikipedia)

Just Don’t Do It

Believe me, I understand the frustration of having a bunch of nimrods misread and mischaracterize your writing. But sockpuppetry is not worth the embarrassment, and it reveals a serious lack of judgment and foresight.

Bloggers, there is no point in committing sockpuppetry and opening yourselves up to ridicule and damaged credibility, especially if you’re blogging under your real names, anyway.

PR firms and other business, if you think astroturfing is a clever way to generate publicity about products, services, and clients, you’re right. Once bloggers find out what you’ve done — pretending to be satisfied customers commenting on blogs under phony names — you will indeed generate publicity.

We’re all connected, and as long as net neutrality is still the law of the virtual jungle, even the smallest blog, the tiniest voice, has the power to expose you and ruin your hard-earned reputation.

Just don’t do it.

Update (9/2): More sockpuppetry.

Update II (9/5): High profile sockpuppetry. How embarrassing for the unfortunate man, who brought it all on himself…

Wednesday, August 9: Big faker.
————————————————————————————————————–

This is the second part of a series of posts called “How to Avoid a Blogosphere Scandal.” See the first post, Disclose!

Plagiarism is stealing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. Plagiarism is probably the most frustrating thing writers have to deal with, aside from having an editor reject an article idea. Writing is not as easy as it looks. All writers love to “have written,” but doing the actual writing is work. It requires a lot of butt-in-chair time. It requires focus and concentration. At least that’s how it is for me.

Most educated folks can string words together to form a coherent sentence, but good writers know now to string those words together artfully to make the prose sing. Diction (word choice) and how and when one uses literary devices like alliteration, irony, onomatopoeia, and tone are part of a writer’s unique style. The more unique that style, the easier it is to discover whether someone has plagiarized the work.

Writers who take the time to research and craft a well-written, informative, and entertaining story shouldn’t have to worry about others stealing and getting credit for their hard work.

Examples of Plagiarism

Copying another writer’s work word for word and putting your name on it is the most obvious example of plagiarism. The knuckhead who wrote this op-ed copied it almost word for word from this writer. Three words: dumb, dumb, and dumb. (Source)

Failing to cite sources is a less obvious example. For instance, some writers and bloggers may read an article and write about the information contained in the article without referencing or citing the article. That may not be so bad if the information in the story is widely known and/or reported. But if the reporter obtained an exclusive interview for the story, and subsequent stories and posts that contain information from the exclusive interview fail to cite the original story, it’s plagiarism.

There’s a fine line between paraphrasing and plagiarizing, in my opinion. Bloggers paraphrase news stories quite often, but as long as you cite and link to the story, it’s usually good enough. If you use the same expressions and phrases as the source, that could be considered plagiarism, even if you cite the source. While ideas are not protected, a writer’s unique style can be.

For more information on plagiarism, see the following:

• Princeton University – Examples of Plagiarism
• How to Recognize Plagiarism
• Plagiarism: Definitions, Examples and Penalties
• Plagiarism: What It is and How to Recognize and Avoid It
• Plagiarism–and how to avoid it!
• Plagiarism.org
• Plagiarism Today – A blog run by a writer whose work was plagiarized, and now he dedicates his time to weeding out plagiarism on the web.

Who’s the most well-known plagiarist in the blogosphere? Click the link below to read more.

Ben Domenech, Blogger

Many of you may recall the blog swarm that swirled around blogger Ben Domenech, co-founder of the group blog RedState. Before he started blogging, Ben contributed to National Review Online (scroll down for the archives) and other publications. I remember the green-eyed monster in my brain struggling against its binding when I realized Ben wasn’t even 25 at the time. It took me forever to get an NRO clip. (Here’s a recent clip.)

When the Washington Post hired Ben to author its “conservative” blog Red America, liberal bloggers were incensed. They went to work to dig up whatever dirt they could find on him, and indeed, there was dirt to be dug. Some called him a racist and admonished the Post for hiring him, and others found many instances of plagiarism in his writing, including in some NRO and Washington Post articles.

While conservative bloggers rallied around him, it became obvious that he was guilty of what he was accused of. It was discovered that Ben had passed off the work of others as his own as far back as 1999.

Daily Kos and others documented several instances of Ben’s plagiarism. This post includes a word-for-word comparison between one of Ben’s articles and one he “borrowed” from. So does this one.

I don’t usually link to Wikipedia, but I’ll make a exception today because the entry on Ben is thorough and accurate. The Plagiarism section of his entry contains a chronological and well-linked synopsis of the scandal with links to articles in the mainstream media. You know a blog scandal is big when MSM covers it. See Blogger Quits Amid Furor and A portrait of the blogger as a young plagiarist.

Some conservative bloggers defended him; others asked him to confess and apologize. Ben’s fate was officially sealed, in my assessment, when Michelle Malkin withdrew her support. Ben apologized and resigned from the Post.

No doubt the blog swarm surrounding Ben Domenech was politically motivated, but the blogosphere is a highly politicized place. Bloggers should know that going in.

Ann Coulter

People on the Left and many on the Right hate Ann Coulter. They hate her books, her looks, her columns, her attitude — everything about her. I happen to like her and her work, but that’s irrelevant.

Her recent book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, raised the blood pressure of many, including some conservatives. The biggest brouhaha stemmed around her criticism of the “Jersey Girls,” a group of 9/11 widows who campaigned for John Kerry and against George Bush. Ann was getting a lot of press, and I’m sure she’s sold a lot of books. Liberals couldn’t stand it. They went to work to discredit her any way they could. A writer for a leftist web site called TPMmuckraker listed what he considered instances of plagiarism in some of Ann’s columns and books.

After an investigation into the allegations, Ann’s column syndicate, Universal Press Syndicate, determined that she did not plagiarize. Read more about the big stink at Google News.

John Hawkins and others came to Ann’s defense.

Sometimes determining whether someone has plagiarized is tricky, as was the case with Ann Coulter. There are only so many ways to express ideas, and a recitation of facts that appear similar to someone else’s recitation isn’t necessarily plagiarism.

Others accused of plagiarism: Historian and writer Doris Kearns Goodwin’s reputation was ruined when others found instances of plagiarism in her books. She admitted to it and said that in the confusion of gathering so much source material, she failed to include quotation marks around certain passages, etc. See “How the Goodwin Story Developed”; Alex Haley, author of Roots (also see Thomas Sowell’s column and this article); Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code; Kaavya Viswanathan, a Harvard student who landed and lost a fat book contract after it was discovered she copied passages from another author; and Martin Luther King, Jr. (see “Authorship Issues”)

When In Doubt, Cite, Rephrase

There is lots of information out there, and what I’ve blogged about will give you a good place to start. As I said, there are only so many ways to state facts, but if you copy someone’s unique way of expressing those facts, it’s probably plagiarism. Some facts are considered “common knowledge,” like references to historical events, so those are fair game.

The simplest ways to avoid accusations of plagiarism are to cite sources and to express the same/similar set of facts and ideas as your source in different ways using different words and sentence structure whenever possible. Be careful about paraphrasing, though; it’s sometimes considered plagiarism.

Plagiarism is a separate but closely related part of copyright infringement. Bloggers should know that it is a copyright violation to copy and paste entire news articles and posts on your blog, even if you cite the source. I’ve seen bloggers do this with my work and the work of others. In one case, I discovered that a blogger posted one of my posts on his blog and “forgot” to source me. I e-mailed him, and the matter was resolved.

Some automated blog programs (used primarily by unscrupulous spammers trying to make money from Google Adsense) republish articles and posts without listing the authors’ names. (See Spammers Want Your Content)

Personal Note

I’ve plagiarized before, I suppose. When I started writing my first biweekly column in 2002, in some cases I failed to cite sources (news stories), giving the impression that it was my research. (Many writers and bloggers are likely guilty of doing that occasionally, but I’m responsible for my own actions.) Though it wasn’t an intent to deceive, it was wrong nonetheless. For that, I’m sorry and will make amends. Whether it was an unclear understanding of exactly what plagiarism was or lazy writing and thinking, I don’t recall. As an English major in college, however, I should have known better.

[Note: I'm biased. I'd like to think the instances were too trivial to qualify as "plagiarism," but since credibility is important to me, it helps to put it out there for others to judge.]

Looking back at those columns, I see that I did cite sources most of the time, and I strive to be diligent about citing sources now. I’m not important and/or threatening enough (yet?) to generate a massive blog swarm, but if I were to become a Washington Post blogger or a syndicated columnist or land a six-figure book deal, I’m sure the wolves would be pacing outside my front door, ready to pounce. I can say this with some relief: the small amount of blood they’d draw certainly won’t be filling.

As I wrote in Disclose!, the first post in this series, people who don’t like you or what you stand for will look for ways to bring you down. Don’t give them the ammunition or the satisfaction. Stay clean and play by the rules.

Other sources:

• Regret the Error’s 2005 plagiarism round-up
• Plagiarism in the blogosphere
• Blogosphere Shows Little Mercy for Plagiarism
• Authorship gets lost on Web

(Photo credits: Kaavya Viswanathan – Globe Staff Photo / David L. Ryan, Alex Haley – ABC )

Thursday, August 3: Read the second post in this series: Don’t Plagiarize!
——————————————————————

This is the first post in a series called “How to Avoid a Blogosphere Scandal.”

The advice can apply to anyone at anytime, but the primary audience is bloggers.

In my short blogging career, I’ve discovered that the more critical and on-point you are about what’s going on in the world, the more detractors will try to dig up dirt on you, “out” you, or hunt for shortcomings, secrets, contradictions, and hypocrisy. People who don’t like you or what you have to say will always look for ways to trip you up. Don’t give them the satisfaction.

Disclosure

Most professions have rules or guidelines about disclosing conflicts or potential conflicts of interest. For example, the preamble to the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics states:

The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.

While we may question mainstream media’s truth-seeking ability or whether they truly strive to provide a “fair” account of events, I believe that in general, most journalists recognize that with a free press comes responsibility. The press serves as a check on government. Part of its duty is to make sure we the people know what’s going on. While I trust the media in theory to tell me the truth, I know that no human is truly objective. As long as I know the source of information is left-leaning, for example, I can make judgments about the fairness (or unfairness) of the coverage, even though events may be factual.

According to SPJ, “Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.” That means reporters should disclose potential conflicts that interfere with the “right to know.” Whether or not bloggers consider themselves journalists, we should be under a similar obligation. Bloggers pride themselves on being transparent. That doesn’t mean we’re obligated to tell all our business. It means that we’re obligated to let readers know if we’re being paid to blog about a certain topic or person.

Political bloggers tend to be pretty transparent about what they believe, why they believe it, who they voted for, etc. As blogging is still a new medium, many of us are still developing our styles and niches and defining our goals and reasons for blogging.

Even though the medium is new, there are a few principles bloggers should keep in mind. For example, if you’re working for a politician and you blog about the politician, you should disclose the relationship. If I were providing content for Michael Steele’s blog for a weekly salary (which I’d like to do because his blog stinks) and I blog favorably about Steele at LBC, I would be under an ethical obligation to disclose that information to readers. Why? Keep reading.

Pat Hynes, consultant for John McCain

I found out this weekend that blogger Pat Hynes of Ankle Biting Pundits, a man I met at CPAC and like very much, is a paid consultant for John McCain, but he didn’t reveal this fact on his personal blog.

I don’t know who broke the “scandal,” but I read about it on Jim Geraghty’s National Review Online Blog. Pat defends himself in Regarding Disclosure. There’s nothing unethical about working for John McCain, but if you’re going to blog about him, readers should be privy to the relationship.

Some bloggers questioned Pat’s integrity. Whether or not the criticism is fair, failing to disclose does open us up to this kind of thing. Hiding or not revealing these sort of relationships for whatever reason can damage our credibility.

If we bloggers are going to demand transparency from the media and criticize other bloggers for failure to disclose, we must hold ourselves to the same standard. Why should we disclose financial relationships? Because people don’t want to be manipulated. If someone blogs in support of a candidate and encourages your support, imagine how manipulated you’d feel if you found out the blogger was on the candidate’s payroll. He may have been sincere in his praise and really believes the candidate is worthy, but people will wonder if the blogger’s words were his own, or if those words were paid for by a third party.

(I can’t remember how I found this Wonkette post, but it will serve as an example in another part of this series: Link to sources, especially to bloggers whose photos you download from their blogs without attribution. )

The Armstrong Williams Scandal

Armstrong Williams (photo from his site) learned this hard lesson last year. The Bush Administration paid him $240,000 to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on TV and radio to a black audience — and encourage black journalists to do the same. Scandal erupted when someone found out about it. Williams defended himself by saying that he sincerely supported NCLB, but that was no defense.

Notwithstanding the race targeting, I didn’t like what Williams did because it was embarrassing. It made him look like a paid shill with something to hide. At the same time, I don’t begrudge the man a government contract. Just disclose that you’re on the payroll! (I offered my three cents in Armstrong Williams: The Wrong Side and An Apology That Misses The Point.)

On the Left

Is it wrong to say I care more about the integrity of conservatives than I do liberals? Well, so be it. Leftist bloggers Jerome Armstrong (MyDD) and Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) were on the payrolls of Democrats. Jim Geraghty drafted a helpful timeline of the unfolding scandal.

Last Things

Bloggers should disclose financial relationships with politicians and businesses they blog about. If you don’t and a blog swarm ensues, you can’t blame anyone but yourself.

Next post: How to Avoid a Blogosphere Scandal: Don’t Plagiarize!

I have a short list of topics for this series, but I’m open to a few more. What’s your advice to bloggers who want to avoid being the target of negative blog swarms?

Update: Jim Geraghty writes:

If you’re a blogger, and you’re being financially compensated by a candidate, and you have not yet disclosed this fact to your readers, send me an e-mail. Tell me your side of the story…Because, sooner or later, you’re going to get caught. If you come out now, you’ll at least get some credit for doing the right thing; if you come out and admit it because I or some other reporter have caught you, it will only get worse.

(Emphasis in original)

Update II: I would guess most bloggers are hobbyists, but all bloggers — professionals and hobbyists — should examine whether they benefit from a person or organization financially or otherwise, and whether they’ve disclosed the relationship if they blog about the person or organization. I’m looking into my own dealings to weed out and/or disclose potential conflicts. What I blog, I believe, but others can get the wrong idea…

A commenter says in a few sentences what it took me a long, drawn-out post to say:

Regardless, bloggers must realize that if they blog about things where they have a financial incentive to skew their views, those views will be met with suspicion. If a blogger aspires to gravitas, they need to think long and hard before taking the lucre…The bloggers who have the greatest respect are the ones we believe are independent.

Update III (8/1): Hugh Hewitt takes a moment away from his coverage of Israel-Hezbollah and comments on the Hynes story. Danny Glover at Beltway Blogroll does another round-up.

Hey peeps! Hube here again. Check this out:

Perpetual racial huckster Al Sharpton has a new gig: pitchman for car title loans.

In commercials airing locally, the ever-colorful Sharpton stands on a stage with an American flag and happily declares, “Finally, there’s someone in Virginia who will loan money to people the big guys won’t loan to.”

Car title lenders give cash to those who own their cars free and clear, with interest rates that can approach 300 percent annually. The lender can repossess and sell the car if the short-term loan is not repaid on time. The controversial practice is permitted in about half the states, and consumer groups are pushing hard for more regulation. “These are predatory small loans,” said Jean Ann Fox of the Consumer Federation of America.

Al doesn’t feel any problem with the ads:

“If I felt this is in any way abusive, I would stop doing the ads,” Sharpton said yesterday. He filmed three commercials for LoanMax, a Georgia-based company with 150 offices across the country, and said he considers these loans different from predatory ones because the borrowers have assets (the car) but not the credit rating to get bank loans.

To virtually no one’s surprise, Al’s like-minded political brethren have felt differently about “predatory” lending. “Predatory Lending is the civil rights issue for this century,” says Congressional Black Caucus member Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D-OH) who refers to the matter as a “civil rights issue.”

But this is Al Sharpton, folks. With a list of questionable activities as long as a Fidel Castro speech, Al will nevertheless get a pass on this, too. Besides, according to LoanMax president Rod Aycox, “People just love Reverend Sharpton.”

Speak for yourself, Rod.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson wanted to generate support from the isolationist camp to intervene in the war in Europe. According to various sources, including PBS, he formed the Committee on Public Information, also known as the “Creel Commission,” to spread anti-German sentiment.

(Also see Wikipedia’s entries on the Creel Commission and propaganda. Good stuff.)

Wilson hired a “muckraking” journalist named George Creel to push official and pro-war information, and history shows he was successful, although many supported the war on principle, as well. (See Cartooning for Victory and Four Minute Men: Volunteer Speeches During World War I — Are the sources biased? Probably, but as long as they present facts…)

Most of us think of war generally or Nazism specifically when we hear the word “propaganda.” Today we think of propaganda as misleading per se, but that wasn’t always the case. Back in the seventeenth century, the church in Rome formed the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, or the Roman Catholic Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, to oversee the spread of Catholicism. The term became pejorative most likely after the formation of the Creel Commission. (Note: A commenter writes: “The OED gives a source from 1842 which says “propaganda is used as a term of reproach in modern political language…for the spread of opinions and principles which are viewed by most governments with horror and aversion.”)

If you’re like me, you don’t mind a little propaganda with your coffee.

As a conservative who supports the war on terrorism wholeheartedly, for example, including the “battle” in Iraq, I tend to give more weight to pro-war messages than “peace” messages. If we want to rid the world of war, we have to rid the world of sin. We don’t have the power to do this, but we have the power to protect ourselves from attack.

That’s why I believe certain types of propaganda during wartime are permissible (I can already see the e-mail coming!). I listen to old radio shows, and I especially like the ones broadcast during WWII. I even like the commercials. Everyone and everything seemed patriotic. We’re wise enough to know this wasn’t the case. The point is that Germany and Japan heard and saw pro-American and anti-German and anti-Japanese propaganda, which was the point. If nothing else, America presented a united front to the enemy, which I think is an extremely important psychological tactic during wartime.

If you haven’t already figured it out, I’ll disclose my bias. I am not against propaganda, especially during a time of war. The extraordinary circumstances that our country’s young men and women face on foreign soil defending freedom requires, in my opinion, a strong, unequivocally united front. If the spreading of pro-war sentiment is necessary for swift victory and the protection of as many lives as possible, then I’m all for it.

Now we get to 2005. I said all of the above to somewhat lessen the impact of the current form of propaganda being perpetrated in government agencies. The Bush administration has violated the law at least three times.

The language found in appropriations bills since 1951 usually reads like this: “No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress.” Three of Bush’s agencies paid no attention to the prohibition:

— In May 2004, the General Accountability Office (GAO), a government agency that purports to “investigative agency that examines the use of public funds, evaluates federal programs and activities, and provides analyses, options, recommendations, and other assistance to help the Congress make effective oversight, policy, and funding decisions,” found that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service’s (of the Department of Health and Human Services) had violated the prohibition against using public money for publicity or propaganda. (Decision)

The “covert propaganda” was in the form of unsourced video news releases (VNRs) sent to various media outlets by government agencies via public relations firms (like Ketchum). If these VNRs do not identify the source of the information to the viewing/reading audience, it’s known as “covert propaganda” because it is misleading. People believe they are watching a reporter presenting a news story, but the “reporter” is actually a government contractor and the “news story” is actually publicity for a government program.

A spokesman for DHHS tried to defend the agency’s actions. “It’s not covert. TV stations knew the videos came from us and could have identified the government as the source if they had wanted to.” (Source)

Leave it up to journalists to disclose the information? Why not just indicate the source in the videos themselves to avoid all the trouble? Unless you’re trying to mislead the public. The GAO dismissed the government’s argument:

The intended audience, it said, was not news directors, but viewers, and “the video news releases did not alert viewers that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was the source.”

Moreover, it said, “some news organizations indicated that they misread the label or they mistook the story package as an independent journalist news story.” (Source)

— On January 4, the GAO found another violation under Bush’s watch. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) produced VNRs and failed to identify itself to the viewing audience as the producer of the videos. (Decision)

Agencies, I assume, usually defend themselves by asserting that the type of publicity and “outreach” in VNRs are authorized by the Congress, as did the ONDCP and, therefore, are not in violation of the law. The GAO said:

We agree with ONDCP that news media outreach is an authorized activity under the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, and we agree that section 1802(a)(1)(H) evinces congressional intent that ONDCP influence the attitudes of the public and the news media with respect to drug abuse. Section 1802(a)(1)(H), however, does not relieve ONDCP of the need to comply with the publicity or propaganda prohibitions.

What’s the rationale behind the prohibition on public funds used for propaganda? For starters, taxpayer funds shouldn’t be used to spread misleading information. As for journalists, they operate under the same criminal and civil laws that we do, as well as an unofficial code of ethics:

Journalism societies have noted in their codes of ethics that journalists should resist influence from outside sources, including advertisers and special interest groups. Because VNRs consist of information generated by a group with a distinct perspective on an issue, the unfettered use of VNRs may run afoul of these principles. Moreover, professional organizations warn against using materials that would deceive audiences. VNRs that disclose the source of information to the target audience alleviate these ethical concerns.

— Last and certainly not least, the Department of Education recently violated the prohibition against covert propaganda: the government failed to identify itself as the source of Armstrong Williams’s “advertisements.” Now, there’s been no GAO hearing on this, but I’m positive Democrats in Congress are drawing up the papers as I write.

What could have prevented the previous rulings and Williams’s embarrassment? Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure! I cannot stress this enough. The illegality of the whole Armstrong Williams fiasco turns on the failure to disclose. It would have been so simple, too simple, to identify the source of the videos referenced in the GAO cases.

And all Williams had to do was tell his audience that although he supports No Child Left Behind, the government was sponsoring the message. He would have been off the hook and the rest would’ve been Bush’s problem. But, alas, Williams is just a cog in the machine, the fall guy, and nothing more.

It’s not enough to believe that you’re doing nothing wrong or that what you are doing is nobody’s business. The appearance of impropriety is enough. Here are other laws that Williams broke, as pointed out by a commenter:

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…

See Section 317 and Section 507.

The law found in appropriations bills and the federal code seems clear on its face, so why does the Bush administration continue to violate it? The president’s lawyers are in need of some remedial legal training. I hate to agree with liberals, but in this case, I must. While I don’t want to read about yet another Congressional hearing or investigation, one might be necessary.

I wonder how many other journalists (conservative AND liberal) are receiving payments from the government which are channeled through public relations firms for write-ups disguised as news or journalists’ opinions?

Update: FINALLY! Samuel “Sandy” Berger’s pilfering of top secret documents (down his PANTS) will be vetted before a federal grand jury. (Hat tip: Blogs for Bush)

Also, regarding video news releases (VNRs), reader Bryan P. writes:

When a reporter receives a VNR, it is up to that reporter to vet the information in it. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, but it is their job to do that before they air it. If a reporter airs material from a source they neither know nor understand, they are not acting as a responsible journalist. As for disclosing the source in the video, you can’t really do that and expect it to air. If, for example, DHHS puts its logo on the footage, who’ll use it? They should disclose the source in accompanying paperwork, and that may have been done but the reporters never saw it. That paperwork tends to get lost in the shuffle at larger broadcast outlets. As for the VNRs themselves, sometimes the VNR makes it onto the air verbatim from the PR house, with only the station or network’s IDs attached. Most of the time the VNRs never see the light of day, or if they do only some small part gets aired. The tapes get turned into stock footage or get erased and used by the station that received them. If the station or net is in a generous mood, they’ll return the tape to the sender. This almost never happens, though.

For years, VNRs have served both the agencies and the press. The
agencies get to tell their story to the press; the press gets a ready-made piece that will require just enough assembly on their end
to justify their existence. But I think in the DHHS/Drug VNRs,
someone in the press decided to “burn” this source. Either the VNRs
got outed by someone who’s new to the process and didn’t understand the role of VNRs in the press, or they did know but just wanted to embarass the Bush administration. Guess which theory I favor. The Washington press corps loathes Bush; anything they can do to embarass him, they’ll do. And the VNR story sure embarassed the administration, and helped close off one of its avenues for getting its stories to the public.

Update II:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was cautious in choosing his comments.

“Questions have been raised about that arrangement, it ought to be looked into, and there are ways to look into matters of that nature,” [Scott] McClellan said…The Government Accountability Office is already investigating whether the department illegally promoted the No Child Left Behind law with a video that looks like a news story but fails to make clear the reporter involved was paid by the government. The GAO is also reviewing why the department paid for rankings of how reporters are covering the law. (Source)

If McClellan is lying (because it will be found out if he is), can you imagine the fall-out? The Democrats will have their long-awaited scandal.

(Hat tip: Cincinnati Black Blog)

Update III (1/12): Those Power Line guys are alright.

Also see Casey Lartigue’s Open Letter to Armstrong Williams.

Update IV (1/13): From Little Green Footballs:

“Well, here’s a shocka.

Markos “Screw Them” Zuniga, the proprietor of moonbat lefty site Daily Kos, was paid — apparently well paid — by the Howard Dean campaign…”

I hope liberals will have some substantive to say about this. What do I say? Since we bloggers fancy ourselves citizen journalists, shouldn’t some journalistic standards apply? Of course. Daily Kos should have disclosed. It reeks.

Update V (1/14): As it turns out, Daily Kos disclosed. It reeks less.

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.”