My apology - Armstrong Williams

townhall.com ^ | 1/10/05 | Armstrong Williams

[kattracks]

Dear readers:

In 2003, I agreed to run a paid ad on my syndicated television show, promoting the Department of Education’s No Child Left Behind Act. I subsequently used my column space to support that legislation. This represents an obvious conflict of interests. People have used this conflict of interests to portray my column as being paid for by the Bush Administration.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

At the same time, I understand that I exercised bad judgment in running paid advertising  for an issue that I frequently write about in my column. People need to know that my column is uncorrupted by any outside influences. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for my bad judgment, and to better explain the circumstances.

[Darkwolf377]

This certainly sounds a lot more innocent than was portrayed by previous media reports. I've been wondering why certain liberal pundits were not jumping ugly on him, and this column seems to explain why. An error in judgement, maybe, but even so, it's not as big a deal as I first thought.

[taxesareforever]

Certain conservative pundits didn't have a problem piling on.

[Waco]

Pro Sports teams playing in a taxpayer funded arena? Fed. funds used to pay part ofcost? Looks like it'll have to stop in a way. Food for thought.

[Inkie]

Too bad you can't say the ame thing about liberals vis a vis Bill Moyers' gig on PBS.

[msnimje]

I was shocked at how people, especially people on this board, were so quick to judge and condemn him without waiting a few days to hear his side of the story. It is no wonder fine Americans have no desire to get into politics. They must give up their right to be mere mortals and must be far better than those who presume to judge them.

[Lewite]

Armstrong's critics would be the fist to gush over Moyer's liberal rant. There is no comparison of these two, Moyer's is about as close as you can get to Joseph Goebbels as you can without goose stepping!

[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.

Did Congress authorize these payments? If not, do any of you loyahs out there know what may happen here?

[Darkwolf377]

I don't think there is anything illegal about paying Williams's company for promotion--I don't think anyone's questioned that. The problem is Williams profiting as a businessman while at the same time he is personally pushing the agenda his company is being paid for.

[ovrtaxt]

I'm just giving you the law that the libs are bringing up. Do they have an argument, or is it just another lynching?

[BlessedBeGod]

Sounds like he's in denial.

[ovrtaxt]

I guess I should also relay my absolute disgust with the NCLB act. It plain sucks, as it slows down the process of issuing vouchers by requiring a school to fail first before the parents are given a choice. And this is promoted as a good thing? Vouchers {ideally refunds or a tax cut} should be issued because it's OUR MONEY to spend as we wish.

As for Armstrong, we all know it was unethical, my concern is the legality and what the Admin. is vulnerable to.

[mhking]

My piece from this morning:

---

Reaction to the Armstrong Williams-Department of Education scandal was swift and furious over the weekend, as I wasn't the only one to make a lot of noise on the issue (LaShawn Barber, Michelle Malkin, Rob Bernard, DC Thornton, Amy Ridenour, Sisu, Nate Livingston, Expertise, Booker Rising, Eduwonk, Wizbang, The American Prospect's Tapped column, Powerline & others too numerous to mention).

In the wake of Friday's revelations, Tribune Media Services, who syndicated his column to newspapers nationally, abruptly dropped his column, and most likely, his television show, The Right Side with Armstrong Williams (syndicated on Sinclair stations and aired nationally on cable/satellite networks TVOne and The Liberty Channel) will be cancelled as well. No word on his radio show, which airs on a handful of stations across the nation.

Williams was apologetic in this morning's column, appearing on TownHall.com.

I understand that I exercised bad judgment in running paid advertising for an issue that I frequently write about in my column. People need to know that my column is uncorrupted by any outside influences. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for my bad judgment, and to better explain the circumstances.

The fact is, I run a small business. I am CEO and manage the syndication and advertising for my television show. In between juggling my commentaries and media appearances, I stepped over the line. This has never happened before. In fact, my company has never worked on a government contract. Nor have we ever received compensation for an issue that I subsequently reported on. This will never happen again. I now realize that I have to create inseparable boundaries between my role as a small businessman and my role as an independent commentator.

I accept full responsibility for my lack of good judgment. I am paying the price. Tribune Media has cancelled my column. And I have learned a valuable lesson. I just want to assure you that this will never happen again, and to ask for your forgiveness.

People have accused me, in various forums over the weekend, of wanting to 'throw Armstrong under the bus.' Nothing could be further from the truth. I certainly want conservative blacks of all stripes and from all quarters to thrive and succeed.

But at the same time, when ethical lines are crossed, I will call people on them. Period.

Many on the conservative side of the coin have railed on about people like Bill Moyers receiving tax monies to promote a political agenda in the past, yet those same voices are silent now.

The bottom line is that wrong is wrong.

I appreciate Williams' apology this morning, and his stock certainly rises a bit as a result. He has owned up to his mistake and is willing to move forward. I, too, am willing to move forward, and while I can certainly forgive his shortcoming in this case, I cannot ignore it.

I stand by my statement of Friday, when I indicated that his word would be suspect in the future.

While his apology appears genuine, only his actions as time moves forward will tell me if he truly has learned his lesson and is worth listening to again.

(More analysis of the apology: LaShawn Barber & others)

[netmilsmom]

>>While his apology appears genuine, only his actions as time moves forward will tell me if he truly has learned his lesson and is worth listening to again.<<

Wow! You can tell you are a conservative!
The Libs would have taken the apology and praised him all over.

I agree with you.

[MindBender26]

>But at the same time, when ethical lines are crossed, I will call people on them.

... which is what separates you (and many FReepers) from the great unwashed gaggle of liberal talking heads stalking Sunday Morning television.

Whenever some liberal commits a huge moral and/or ethical no-no, the liberal Talking Heads and the the producers who book them remind me of the Huns, Vikings and Visigoths we see trampling on all the bystanders in those Capitol One "What's In Your Wallet" credit card commercials.

The only difference is, in this case, they trample on the rights, beliefs and sensibilities on anyone "foolish enough" not to live within the Washington Beltway.

In the credit card commercials, the marauders are stopped when the heroine shows the audience that she is using the correct credit card.

Of course, the Moral Marauders don't take credit cards.

They only take cash from Buddhist nuns, but that is a story for another day.....

Be well.

[Judith Anne]

I don't have any problem with his explanation, and I believe it. Conservatives hold themselves accountable, and others too.

Had he disclosed the advertising contract, and then said, "I have this contract, but in addition this is something I personally support," I don't think there would have been any problem. I'm not going to write him off for this, I sincerely think it was just a mistake.

[Tribune7]

With a second look it doesn't seem so bad. My initial reaction was based on info from the MSM -- will I ever learn. Or maybe I just didn't read things close enough. It appears that Williams was responsible for getting the advertising for his show and one of his clients ended up being the government. If his syndicators understood that this was the arrangement, and that he was self-employed and not on someone's editorial staff, then no lines were crossed. It was basically no different than E&P accepting money for an ad from a newspaper that they write about-- which they do all the time.

. . .and Robert Novak (who has faced ethics questions of his own after outing an undercover CIA agent in his Chicago Sun-Times/Creators Syndicate column).

This gratutious smear against Novak bugs me exponentially more than what Williams is accused of.

[NonValueAdded]

Just an observation ... I haven't heard much on the angle of a conservative administration having to pay to get its message out due to a hostile biased media environment. That doesn't excuse Mr. Williams or absolve any agency of obeying the law, if indeed it is as was posted.

Isn't it funny that Williams' lib critics have suddenly rediscovered ethics in journalism? Don't worry, that will blow over soon.

[cyborg]

exactly

[zook]

The Dept. of H&HS puts out PSAs all the time promoting affirmative action, immunizations, or eating 12 vegetables a day. I really doubt that these have all been explicitly approved by Congress. I suspect that the DoE has the implicit authority to spend money on ads like these.