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.
Have they ever done this with a leftist media host?
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.
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??
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.
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: