Posted on 01/08/2005 10:15:41 AM PST by carolinacrazy
$260,000 dollars. OH MY GOODNESS. This is certainly going to break the bank. Take a look at Pork Barrel spending before you get upset about this. Legislators charge us more for lunches each day than this. This is just another attack against the winners of the November election. These people need to get a grip (Media, and all those clamoring for investigations).
"did nothing"? There was nothing wrong with it!
Sheesh
Situations should be treated as they are and not hyped.
Nobody but you thinks this issue is about his being black. It is about his being paid to promote government policy and not tell anyone. He was a paid shill.
"...the anme of the PR firm?"
-----I'm not sure, but they're saying it's called
Arbusto PR International.
Exactly. That's the entire gripe. He didn't disclose often enough or that he didn't make it CLEAR enough who paid him.
Since when did anyone on the left NOT automatically assume that ANYONE who agreed with ANYTHING the administration did wasn't paid by the administration as part of some evil conspiracy?
There is a lot wrong with it. That was taxpayer money, used to pay a columnist to hype a program. That was dead wrong. It isn't whether it was illegal. It's whether it was ethical - and it was not.
I don't care if it was ten bucks, it still was unethical by all parties involved.
BS. He did not disclose and that is what he problem is. He took money to promote position both in his columns, on TV, on radio...and HE DID NOT TELL THE PEOPLE HE WAS commentating to.
That is why his column was dropped by the Trib, why CNN says they would probably not have him back on, why Juan Williams said that he NEVER told other black reporters he was working with that he was paid to take that position publically.
Let's get this straight: There was nothing wrong with the contract the DOE made with Williams' firm to make the ads.
That is different than Williams' failure to consistantly disclose this contract.
As I noted above, a debate can be had about the proper use of tax dollar expenditures, and I would agree, but at the point it was made there was nothing unethical or illegal with this contract that has been disclosed.
And IMO it was unethical for tax dollars to be used to get a commentator to plug a government program.
You just say that flatly? You are wrong. Yes, he did, but not consistantly.
You seem ill-informed on this matter and I urge you to read up on it before posting misinformation.
Is this statement from you directed to me? I do believe I'm more well-read and informed on this topic than you appear to be. With all due respect.
He did not disclose to the TRIB or to any readers of his articles...me included.
He did not disclose on his CNN commentary, to CNN or his watchers.
He did not disclose, according to Juan Williams, to certain Black reporters who he worked with.
So exactly who did he disclose to and when? Since you know the facts.
Sorry, bad cut-and-paste (New computer keyboard, CTRL-C doesn't always work right).
Didn't they both work in the Clinton White House? I wonder if they did any similar thing then? Of course we all know how ethical the Clinton Administration was.
Excerpt (and the article also more clearly explains the contract than some are representing here):
Williams said the $240,000 in payments were made to promote NCLB as part of an advertising campaign on his syndicated "The Right Side" TV show and that this ad campaign was disclosed to the show's viewers. But he acknowledged that the payments weren't disclosed to other audiences, including readers of his newspaper column. Williams also acknowledged that he mentioned NCLB in some of his 2004 columns, but he said he didn't make NCLB a "centerpiece" in them.
~snip~
Among the papers that received Williams' columns through the syndicate were the Washington Times, the Detroit Free Press and the Seattle Times, according to his website.
A spokeswoman for CNN, which frequently uses Williams as a conservative voice on its news programs, said the cable network should have been notified about Williams' relationship with the Bush administration.
"We will seriously consider this before booking him again," said spokeswoman Edie Emery.
NBC spokeswoman Allison Gollust said that if the network's programs used Williams again, they would first identify his relationship with the Department of Education "as in the case of any of our interviewees on something they are being paid to promote."
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.