Posted on 01/13/2005 12:47:44 PM PST by MisterRepublican
News that radio host/columnist Armstrong Williams was on the Bush administration payroll had liberals and even a few conservatives outraged last week, with critics saying there's no way they can trust that the pro-Republican commentator's comments hadn't been bought and paid for.
So we're wondering where their outrage was last year when radio host Ed Schultz - the much-celebrated "liberal Rush Limbaugh" - admitted he was on the air thanks to the generosity of the Democratic Party.
Here's the March 2, 2004 exchange between Schultz and "Today" show interviewer Jamie Gangel - which seems to have escaped the notice of media critics everywhere. GANGEL: It is no secret that you are on the air for the next two years because Democratic donors have put up $2 million to launch this. Can you really say what you think?
SCHULTZ: Well, I had it written in our agreement that I'm not beholden to anybody.
GANGEL: You can say what you want to say?
SCHULTZ: Absolutely. I said Howard Dean had the willies. [End of Excerpt]
Gov. Dean's willies aside, Mr. Schultz's position doesn't seem to be all that different from that of Mr. Armstrong, who maintains that he never touted a position on any issue that he didn't already believe in - even if some cash did change hands.
Don't get us wrong. We wish Mr. Schultz all the luck in the world. But it would be nice if the outraged pitchfork brigade currently pursuing Williams had a little less of a double standard.
Wrong. There is a difference between being bankrolled by private donors to the Democratic Party and being bankrolled by the US Taxpayer via a federal agency.
Typical 'reporting' by newsmax...
That being said, I suspect the Clinton administration did this many times. Btw, NPR is nothing but a liberal propaganda machine, and taxpayers are forced to contribute to it.
Agreed. On the other hand, PBS and NPR are liberal propaganda outlets that are subsidized by the taxpayer, and the price tag is a whole lot more for them than for Armstrong Williams.
I don’t know why the Dems are complaining, this is technically Teddy Kennedy’s education program.
Big difference.
DNC money is not US taxpayer money.
Comparing the Armstrong Williams case to what Ed Shultz (whom, for the record, I cannot stand) did is like saying FOX "News" shows no more bias than CNN. We all know that's not true!
Actually, Schultz's funding came from the Democratic Governors Association.
Good catch...
You are so right -- two wrongs don't make a right and it's
not even a defense of what's wrong. Because alot of liberals have lost all sense of outrage and decency does
that mean we should? It reminds me of a kid who's caught
with some other kids by his father doing some bad deed,
and the kid says, "But daddy, he's doing it too! He started
it!"
The difference may be that Ed Schultz admitted on-air that he was being paid, whereas I don't think Armstrong Williams ever admitted on-air that he was being paid. Did he?
No, we know no such thing. It is true that CNN is part of the liberal consensus of journalism, and Fox is - at least partly - outside of that consensus. But the only way to judge the perspective of a given journalism is, IMHO, historical retrospect.FNC is relatively new, and not completely different from other journalisms in the sense that it would normally be expected to report on the same stories as the others. But it doesn't take generations, really, to be able to look back historically and judge whether a journalism outlet has expressed a POV openly or if it has implanted its POV in its reporting and called it wisdom (or "objectivity).
CBS got caught using plastic-bananna "evidence" to try to impeach the honor of President Bush in respect to his TANG service. The story it "sexed up" was not a new issue but was addressed in the 2000 presidential campaign and even, undoubtedly, in Mr. Bush's first gubernatorial race in Texas ten years ago. CBS did not elect to cover the story of questions about the service of Senator John "did you know he was in Vietnam?" Kerry.
I admit that FNC was less spring-loaded to attack Bush, or more inclined to publicize questions about Kerry, than CBS was. I await your suggestions as to how CNN's approach to those issues can be proven to be "unbiased" and how FNC's approach can be proven to be "biased."
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.