Posted on 01/13/2005 1:18:52 PM PST by Destro
So you want to think the worst about someone who agrees with you?
One difference -- one big difference -- is that the conflit of interest wasn't transparent in Williams's case.
No, if it was an ad on his TV show then the viewer would make no assumptions about how it relates to Williams' view.
How 'bout them Jets?
No one talks about abolishing the Education Department today. I think its a good idea but Republicans don't want to take on the teachers unions and education establishment that is serviced by the Department.
The forerunner of today's Department of Education had a long career in Interior. In 1867 Congress created an independent entity of the same name to collect and disseminate information on the progress of education. Two years later it was placed under Interior and designated the Bureau of Education. In 1929 it was demoted from a "bureau" to an "office" to counter any impression that it might have or seek direct responsibility for this primary concern of state and local government. The Secretary of the Interior's annual report that year took pains to note that the Office of Education was "primarily an establishment for educational research and promotion" with "no administrative functions except those connected with the expenditure of the funds appropriated by the Federal Government for the assistance of colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts in the several States and Territories, and those connected with the education, support, and medical relief of the natives of Alaska." [26] Soon afterward Alaskan native services moved to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and in 1939 the Office of Education left Interior for what later became (in 1953) the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This in turn spawned the Department of Education in 1979.
First of all, most true conservatives did NOT support NCLB. Second, whether he supported it in the abstract is NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. They paid him to "regularly comment" on it. Frequency and intensity matter. You've got to be out of your mind if you think they paid $240,000 to achieve no result whatsoever.
Your reasoning is unbearably tortured, and in your second point not even sensical. So I'll ignore it, except to clear up one thing which you incorrectly assumed about me: I do NOT support NCLB. It's a huge expansion of federal spending and authority in an area that should have almost no federal role whatsoever.
First, above, you describe the situation objectively...
But he did not disclose the fact that he was getting paid to advertise for the gov't program (a creepy idea anyway) while he was ALSO writing positive opinion columns about the program.
...and then you go on to ignore what you said and you contradict what you said.
I'm a true conservative. I support it.
Second, whether he supported it in the abstract is NOT THE ONLY ISSUE. They paid him to "regularly comment" on it.
That's what I heard initially and if true, you're right. Williams, however, says the money came from a payment for advertising the Dept. of Ed. ran on his talk show. If that's true, I have not the slighest problem with what he's done -- except for his apologizing.
You put words in quotes without mentioning a source. I thought Armstrong was paid to do commercials for NCLB, not to regularly comment on it whatever vague meaning that might have.
So your beef with Williams isn't that he took money for advertising from a government agency but that he supports a program with which you disagree? And your anger at this particular program is such that you ware willing to throw Williams over the side even though you probably agree with him on exponentially more issues than the average media pundit?
Not at all. The second part was about DISCLOSURE. The problem wasn't so much about what he did -- though I think it is distasteful, it is what all news organizations do. It corrupts them all, imo. The problem was that he did not DISCLOSE the information, even as he continued to write personal opinion columns on the topic. You see these disclosures all the time. Jonah Goldberg is good about it. His wife worked with Ashcroft and he always mentioned it when he wrote opinion columns about Ashcroft. That's an example of what Armstrong should have done.
I love Armstrong, and I am very sorry this happened. But he did it to himself. He should have known better.
I read the second part of your post too fast. You didn't contradict yourself.
The problem wasn't so much about what he did -- though I think it is distasteful, it is what all news organizations do. It corrupts them all, imo. The problem was that he did not DISCLOSE the information, even as he continued to write personal opinion columns on the topic. You see these disclosures all the time. Jonah Goldberg is good about it. His wife worked with Ashcroft and he always mentioned it when he wrote opinion columns about Ashcroft. That's an example of what Armstrong should have done.
You illustrate your point well with the Jonah Goldberg example. However Jonah's columns aren't sponsored by the AG and thus, Jonah's column by default doesn't feature any disclosure about his wife and her AG job. Thus Jonah's disclosure.
The Armstrong case is differe. I'll illustrate with two questions;
Question #1: Since Armstrong Williams does paid advertisements for NCLB, aren't those paid advertisements in and of themselves a form of disclosure?
For example as you listen to Armstrong's show you may hear Armstrong's paid advertisements for NCLB. At that point you know that Armstrong gets paid by the NCLB campaign for advertising. Then, you hear him talk about NCLB during the regular non-sponsored part of the show. What further disclosure is needed?
Question #2: Why does one need to know if there is a conflict of interest and that it's effecting a commentator's show?
Your either listen to a commentator because you like what that commentator is saying or you don't listen to that commentator because you don't like what that commentator saying.
Why they are saying it is irrelevant.
"So your beef with Williams isn't that he took money for advertising from a government agency but that he supports a program with which you disagree?"
No, it has absolutely nothing to do with it. You asked why I wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to Williams if I agreed with him on the issue. So I corrected your false assumption. But I do not base my judgment of good ethics on which side the alleged violator is on.
Fair enough. But I'm not going to be quick to judge on the basis of reports from institutions of proven hypocrisy with a track record of exaggerating the sins of those who oppose the policies they tout.
Please see article linked in post 49. The article you linked to in post #56 reports the story in a very misleading way.
What I would like to know is, just how often does government, both federal and local, BUY advertising. I know of one local school board who used my own tax dollars to sell me on being taxed even more. How common is this practice? Advertising may have been bought for the Armstrong show with tax dollars, but I think it is common practice for school boards to advertise for programs they are wanting voters to approve also using tax dollars. Isn't that the same thing? I guess it is okay when the tax dollars are buying liberal education ideology?
See my tagline. :-P
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.