Posted on 01/10/2005 6:38:47 AM PST by mhking
"If that means that I'm throwing him under the bus, I'm sorry."
Bullshit. You're quite happy to do it......the campaign you are running here and elsewhere is only thinly disguised (as indignation) self-promotion of yourself.
Are you sure my George Soros check for opposing the Drug War isn't being deposited in your account? I keep missing it.
Seriously, though, foundations have to publish their spending. To take government propaganda money in secret is quite different.
Way out of line buddy! You apparently don't know Michael very well............
"You apparently don't know Michael very well............"
Good call. But he's doing his best to change that......AT ARMSTRONGS EXPENSE!
For example, let's say that he had some differences of opinion with NCLB that he developed over time. Let's say that he would like to see the abolishment of the DOE (as many conservatives do).
Mind you, I'm just throwing out examples.
But given that, how do we know that we aren't getting his honest opinion, as opposed to what the DOE has told him he HAS to say?
Boortz made a great example on the air Friday: He comes in and wants to decide on a topic of discussion. As opposed to what he wants to talk about, he talks about what the highest bidder wants him to talk about.
This is no different.
Great minds think alike, I guess....[g]
You don't know me, and that's fine.
You don't know what I've done, and that's fine.
And quite frankly, considering you don't know what work I do or don't do on an ongoing basis (or here on FR for quite awhile, mind you), bite me.
If I were trying to "promote myself," there are far more lucrative vehicles that I have at my disposal.
I have an honest concern for the image presented of and by black conservatives. And when people, ON EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, are out of line on something like this, then I'm going to call them on it. Period.
Quite frankly, you can take your blind allegiance, fold it thrice and insert it sideways. I don't care.
I think Michael is disappointed - I know I am - I still respect the man but thought he was smarter than this - he'll learn and not do it again -
Someone needs to ask him, then, if he wrote anything that he does not believe.
If he wrote his true beliefs, then that's what we get anyway.
One issue for me is "how do columnists normally get paid?" If the newspapers/media outlets are paying them, how do we EVER know we're not getting opinions slanted or softened to get past the papers' gatekeepers.
For example, you recall that someone (NYT) refused to run articles they'd commissioned Ann Coulter to write. I'm assuming they contacted her ahead of time...in other words, gave her chance to make changes that would bring the payday that had been promised.
I'm struggling to find what Williams has done that's abnormal in that world.....'cause Coulter appears to be one of the few to bring light on what they have to do to get their articles published.
THe next step = ok with you = is the total ban of all political speech.
Have you any idea what the FIRST AMENDMENT was written for? NO?
It wass written to PROTECT POLITICAL SPEECH - not for nambla to go seek little boys to screw! But that would be ok to you?
If they succeed in this small jerk of the chain, the final goal of these monarchists & TYRRANTS is to block ALL FREE SPEECH if it is political, and as a BONUS, they can ban ALL ads for recruiting of Army, Navy, CoastGuard ,and Marines!
THAT is also one of your ultimate goals also!
You would prefer that there can only be advertisements where the host/station/ownswers/stockholders do NOT believe in the company/source?
Why can't anybody have an ad ...let's say for SNAPPLE ... and during the show say "I like Snapple." ?? That is called FREE SPEECH --- He can also say -without the threat of being arrested, like all of you want to befall Williams- "I hate Snapple." SO?!? He will love an advertiser, but is is free speech.
If Williams, during his show, screamed and hollered like an idiot on how stupid the president was right after playing the govt ad ... would there have been a protest from you? Hardly!
If he wrote his true beliefs, then that's what we get anyway.
Chicken or the egg. Does he believe it because he's getting paid, or is he getting paid because he believes it?
[shrug]Contrary to some of the whiners here, there IS a need for columnists to be above board here -- if for the ability to be able to criticize the hand that feeds it (as it were), if nothing else.
The implication with someone who is paid and does not disclose is that they are an extension of the paying body, as opposed to an independent voice who has come to the same (or similar) conclusion.
I guess I'm voicing my distrust of the independence of just about any columnist who's paid by the LSM.
Therefore, I don't see William's problem as much different.
I'll not argue, though. You make a good point. Disclosure certainly never hurts.
I just wonder, though, if disclosure for "general" columnists should include all those times when editors ask them to change things to make their columns "better."
Misplaced modifiers, wrong tenses, misspellings...fine. Let the editors edit. But what about when they make "recommendations" on content? Should that be disclosed?
I'd vote yes.
This doesn't excuse Williams. View it as a separate issue for another discussion at another time.
Indeed.
Dear TonyRo76,
"Case in point: Mary Mapes still has her job, right?"
It's my understanding that as of 10 am EST today, Ms. Mapes is without a job.
Although that seemed to have occurred about 3 minutes after your post. ;-)
sitetest
Dear mhking,
Your comments are on the money.
sitetest
No, she doesn't. She was fired.
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.