Posted on 01/09/2005 3:16:06 AM PST by Anita1
On CNN Friday morning Bill Hemmer took Williams to task for "ethical questions" over not disclosing his public relations grant.
But other "ethical" issues were not raised on CNN, such as:
No mention was made on CNN of the frequent interviews of movie and TV stars on major networks, including CNN, where there is no dislosure of paid advertising. For example, major movie distribution firms buy advertisements on the same networks that also air the promotional interviews with such stars - with no disclosure whatsoever.
CBS's "60 Minutes" promoted several anti-Bush authors and books, including Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" - without disclosing that the publisher was Simon Schuster, a division of Viacom which also owns CBS.
The inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars for public broadcasting programs that serve as pure political propaganda. Bill Moyer's "Now" program is just one example.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
From what I have read so far, it seems that the Education Dept. which is headed up by Rod Paige (who is also black ) was the one to make a decision to do this action. So why doesn't the media go after him? Could it be because Williams is more visible and has more clout with his columns and TV shows?
But, NewsMax is right - if the liberals want to cry foul - they should also examine themselves for all the times they had liberal columnists and Hollywood types go in TV (while being paid for their agenda and opinion) - especially during the election season.
End of story.
Of course Williams is a bad boy ... a bad bad boy ... a black who strayed off the plantation and must be held up to others as an example to other blacks of what will happen to them, should they dare become emancipated from their owners.
Moyers can be used by the Dims as an example of ... "why what can you expect from whitey?" and just slough it all off.
The left never lets its hypocrisy get in the way of a good whine fest.
I've always liked Armstrong Williams. He used bad judgement on this on and so did the Bush people in offering to promote their agenda through him. If Armstrong is a strong supporter of 'no child left behind', he can rally that cause on his radio and TV programs WITHOUT being paid by taxpayers money. Example: Neil Boortz rallies for the 'Fair Tax' every radio program, yet, doesn't receive a cent of taxpayer or private money from anyone.
This amounts to the government paying for propaganda. Sorry, but that's how I see it. Yes, PBS does it all the time, but if I'm not mistaken, this is illegal. If this goes to an investigation, it would be a great way to give the entire government subsidized broadcast industry a giant enema.
Williams screwed up. End of story.
Apples and oranges. That's comparing stars whom EVERYONE knows are out to plug their latest shows/movies with someone who nobody ever would have expected was doing infomercials for Rod Paige. Pul-eeze.
Not to excuse what Williams did, but we all remember when CNN hired Wesley Clark and he had free air time to condemn the Bush administration, all while he was promoting HIS plan and his future presidential bid.
Even if one is to accept the idea of a PR firm paying Williams for his advocacy (an idea I'm wary about but willing to accept), the absence of disclosure is the final straw. A quarter of a million dollars is not a sum which one forgets when advocating policy in print. If he would have revealed the payments in every instance of his advocacy, there would be no ethical problem.
One can still remember reports of the 'enlightened' marching in pro-abortion parades, and writing about it in the Times or Post the next week. The idea that Williams sold out to the Administration is only to say that the entire LM, from academia to the music biz to the Dem Party to Fannie Mae swindlers, are completely sold out to a leftwing socialist agenda and will twist the 'news' and either calumniate or boost this or that public candidate accordingly. This last election was partially about that continuing grasp for power by the leftist media, completely sold out for the Dem Party and any stupid, leftist notion that would otherwise find an important place in any candidate's platform.
That's why - talk radio, the web, even FOX for a time. That's why Armstrong Williams, not because he was sold out, but because everyone else to which he provided the alternative - was.
Maybe if Williams was against "No Child Left Behind" before the government contract and for it after, it could be considered a bribe or unethical, but how is supporting an ally of a policy "illegal"?
How about attempting to understand your subject before jumping in next time?
What absurd reasoning.
Have they ever done this with a leftist media host?
He'd have people on to advocate their causes, cause for which those were recieving grants from Moyer's own "foundation".
It does have the look of "cronyism" but the author is right. We've all seen enough morning talk shows pumping books and movies and political agendas in which the networks have a financial stake.
Williams is the target because of his success.
Are you certain he doesn't receive a cent of taxpayer money? I don't care about private money but I'll always, from now on, wonder about any commentator taking my tax money under the table. Anyone who does should go to prison along with everyone who authorized the payments. I DON'T PAY TAXES FOR SOME CORRUPT POLITICIAN TO USE TO BUY PROPOGANDA.
Williams was paid with my tax dollars and hid the fact. CNN and everyone else can use their personal money anyway they please. My tax dollars are a different story, I don't pay them for some corrupt politician to use to promote his own agenda.
Caveat emptor. ;-)
Can you tell me what it was that Williams did wrong? AFAIK, he has never pretended to be an "objective reporter" (as if such a thing existed).
The Ed. Dep't had a program he liked, and he took money to help promote it. In other words, to do commercials.
Is there a show host anywhere in this country who doesn't do that?
And is there a gov't program that doesn't pay for commercials if they think they need to? Does anyone remember the torrent of anti-smoking stuff paid for by the AG??
Caveat emptor. ;-)
You're absolutely correct. It just amazes me how many fools are taken in by the commentators. All the while the commentators are laughing at the fools while cashing their payola checks.
The bulk of us (and yes, I count myself in that number) do NOT get paid for television or radio appearances.
The news networks have "contributors" (i.e., Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Col. Hunt, Judge Napalitano on FNC) who are on retainer and receive a small sum for our regular appearances. But the bulk of us (including other FR members who appear semi-regularly on FNC, MSNBC, CNN and other networks; Trueblackman, Kristinn, Mychal Massie, and myself among others) do NOT get paid.
We either have "real" jobs, or we have written books or columns that we get paid for.
You don't want to believe that, that's your business. But that's the God's truth. Period.
Double-barrelled Mega-PING! to both lists! If you want on, FReepmail me!
A small sum? Hardly. Everyone you listed is either syndicated in major newspapers,sells books,etc. Any appearance at all means big bucks for them. They're all friends and buddies with the newsreaders and talk host talkers who invite on their shows,etc. Whenever I see you go on Sean Hannity,etc. you're getting sandbagged by some black lib moron.
I'd love to be a "Fox News Contributor." It would up the number of appearances I'd get to make, certainly up my street cred, and most likely let me get a national column or sell a book more easily.
The average pundit that shows up on these shows is not getting paid for it.
They certainly don't mind doing shows for free because they can push their books. I know what Williams did was wrong but my word all this indignation over 'integrity' when most all these journalists are money grabbers themselves. Don't mind me, I'm just thinking out loud *lol*
I'm not going to go off on my tirade again. Everyone here knows how I feel.
As far as I'm concerned, there ARE ethics involved, and Williams breached them.
The larger issue is that this was done with taxpayer money and no disclosure.
I've got a problem when Bill Moyers did it, and I've got the same problem when Armstrong Williams did it.
My indignation does not change with the political affiliation.
Wrong is wrong.
fair enough
The reality is, though, since we do TV, we get more clients, bigger fees, more cute women approaching us on the DC Metro, etc, so thre a are some benefits.....
Fair enough. I'll put you on list I consider you to be above board (It's a very short list). I became politically active because of corruption in government no matter which side is benefited by the corruption. If their word or vote can be influenced by dollars we don't need them on the air or in government. That's what got us in this mess in the first place.
What a silly thing to write.
"But the bulk of us (including other FR members who appear semi-regularly on FNC, MSNBC, CNN and other networks; Trueblackman, Kristinn, Mychal Massie, and myself among others) do NOT get paid."
But don't you benefit financially in the long run? Network appearances are "business development" to the extreme.
checkmate
Section 628 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not authorized by Congress.
Since everybody seems to be dancing around this question, I'll just spell it out plainly. If Williams and Paige's actions are a violation of this law, {which has yet to be determined in court}, what can we expect to come of it? Congress, of course, has written themselves an out, as usual. They are allowed to pay for propaganda, but the executive or judicial branch isn't. That, unfortunately, puts PBS in the clear.
Any predictions as to what the fallout will be?
Another issue that nobody has brought up is the quality of the NCLB act, which IMHO is a sorry excuse for the education of lab rats, much less our kids. Bush tapped Ted Kennedy for his input on it. Hello?
The only victim in this whole sordid affair is the usual battered victim we have come to expect: the taxpayer. The idea that the federal government can lavish taxpayer money on someone to shill for one of its unconstitutional programs is outrageous. Armstrong should have refused the money and should have instead pointed out how the NCLB program is an unconstitutional instrusion into the exclusive and sovereign domain of the states: education.
Oh, sure we do. I'll be the first to tout the advantages of television/radio appearances for myself and others. But that is different from being a paid representative of a group or company.
Media Targets Armstrong Williams
When one of the nation's few African American commentators takes the Republican side, expect him to become a target.
So it is with Armstrong Williams.
USA Today leads today, "Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show, and to urge other black journalists to do the same."
The paper says the administration's public relations campaign was "part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB)," and that it "required commentator Armstrong Williams 'to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts,' and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004."
A leading Congressional Democrat says the payments to Williams were "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money."
So what's the fuss about?
Williams, 45, is a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
An outspoken conservative, he hosts a syndicated TV show, The Right Side, and pens a syndicated column, carried in dozens of papers and on NewsMax.com.
Williams also runs his Washington-based public relations firm, Graham Williams Group.
His public relations firm also produces his TV show.
Though numerous syndicated TV programs - including ones on PBS - receive payments from guests and businesses as a form of advertisement without disclosure, the media is making much about the fact that Williams didn't disclose his public relations firm had received a payment to promote an issue.
Williams responds he was hiding nothing and readily admits he received the public relations contract.
He said he did so because he believes in the issue and that his show is part of his public relations work.
He also notes that his TV program has few advertisers and that this is an acceptable form of advertising.
On CNN Friday morning Bill Hemmer took Williams to task for "ethical questions" over not disclosing his public relations grant.
But other "ethical" issues were not raised on CNN, such as:
The fact that Williams profited from breaking the law. Duh.
This is just the sort of thing one would expect from liberals: pass a huge new federal program, then use taxpayer money to sell the public on the need for the program. That anyone who claims to be conservative would sign on to this is outrageous. I don't know anything about Williams. I assume it was a solitary lapse of judgment. He should apologize, return the money, and then work to end federally-mandated education programs and return education back to the states.
Whoever in the Bush administration is responsible for buying off Williams should apologize to the taxpayers and pledge to never do it again. The Secretary of Education should declare NCLB is another unconstitutional intrusion by the all-knowing feds into the sovereignty of the states. The Bush administration should work with Congress to repeal NCLB and aplogize for the waste of taxpayer monies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.