About the "Ethics" of Armstrong Williams

NewsMax ^ | Jan. 7

[Scenic Sounds]

I think people need to come to terms with the fact that the vast majority of the talk show hosts, columnists and commentators who try to gain our attention with their baloney do it for the money. It is incidental if some of them actually believe some of the baloney they're selling.

Caveat emptor. ;-)

[speekinout]

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??

[cgbg]

My biggest complaint with Armstrong Williams is he should have taken the money, met his obligations under his agreement, then disclosed the agreement, and then called for the abolition of the Department of Education and discussed why this was a great example of why they should be abolished.

Conservatives should not be in the business of peddling the virtues of big government regardless of whether they are on the government payroll or not.

[LPM1888]

I think people need to come to terms with the fact that the vast majority of the talk show hosts, columnists and commentators who try to gain our attention with their baloney do it for the money. It is incidental if some of them actually believe some of the baloney they're selling.

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.

[mhking]

It just amazes me how many fools are taken in by the commentators.

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!

[cyborg]

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.

[mhking]

You didn't catch what I said: As a whole, we do NOT get paid for our appearances.

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.

[cyborg]

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*

[mhking]

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.

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.

[cyborg]

fair enough

[MindBender26]

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.....

[LPM1888]

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.

[sevry]

What absurd reasoning.

What a silly thing to write.

[BackInBlack]

"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.

[Tribune7]

Good point. Williams can't be defended but what he did was nowhere near as disgraceful as CNN being the Husseins' lapdog.

[TheOtherOne]

checkmate

[ovrtaxt]

Senate Rpt.105-049 - TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATION BILL, 1998

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?

[reelfoot]

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.

[mhking]

But don't you benefit financially in the long run? Network appearances are "business development" to the extreme.

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.