Bush PAID a columnist to support his agenda....
- Thread starter Spoiled
- Start date
It was unethical for all parties involved to not make it clear that he was being paid.Ken King said:
And if he already supports it, why did they pay him?
I still don’t see the unethical aspect of this. The Department of Education (DOE) wants to generate advertisements to garner support for the No Child Left Behind program (which they can legally do according to law). They hire a PR firm to create the ads (seems like a reasonable move as I wouldn’t expect the DOE to have a full time staff on board for this). The PR firm contracts a media pundit to be the spokesman in the ads, in this case Armstrong Williams (who by the way has already displayed interest in the endeavor through his syndicated writings). What is unethical? Is there something in the ads that makes one believe that he did this of his on volition and wasn’t hired to do it? I don’t know, does anyone have a link to the ads in question?vraiblonde said:
Why did they pay him? Well they (meaning the DOE) didn’t, it was the contracted PR firm that paid Williams. The DOE paid the PR firm according to the deal worked out in the contract of service. Isn’t it customary to pay persons that perform work in our society? And whom would you want to do the job for you, a person that believes in what you are doing or some dopey actor that either has no clue or is totally against what it is but is doing it for the money alone?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I don't know that it is...
...but when James Carville is telling us what a good man Bill Clinton is, we know where his bread is buttered.
Armstrong had, in my view, an obligation to disclose his relationship with the Feds while he was advocating.
...but when James Carville is telling us what a good man Bill Clinton is, we know where his bread is buttered.
Armstrong had, in my view, an obligation to disclose his relationship with the Feds while he was advocating.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
vraiblonde said:
Isn't receiving money for services "tit for tat"? You provide a service, and you benefit from it. I don't see why there's some special category for receiving cash. I see no difference between paying money, providing a service that enriches, or providing complimentary stays in the Lincoln bedroom. It's all the same thing.
That's just it - there were no "ads" except for his columns and talk show appearances. There was no TV or print campaign - "Hi, I'm Armstrong Williams here to tell you about NCLB". Had that been the case, it would have been obvious he was a spokesperson and no problem.Ken King said:
And here's the other thing - pundits get paid to go on talk shows and to write columns. They don't do that stuff for free. So he's getting paid by the various media to share his opinions, and he's being paid by the DoE to push a specific opinion. It's unethical and wrong.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Aw...you're splitting hairs...
...Dan Rather works for the Democratic party. We already know that. He get's paid by CBS. That's full disclosure enough.
Armstrong belongs to the chattering class and typically these folks are introduced to us as 'Al Hunt, WSJ...' or 'Bob Novak, Chicago blah...'
Armstrong should have been introduced as "Armstrong, doing adds for the Department of education'
It's one thing if the National Review, say, chooses to run editorials in support of the same thing's Armstong is supporting. They don't have a direct economic tie.
...Dan Rather works for the Democratic party. We already know that. He get's paid by CBS. That's full disclosure enough.
Armstrong belongs to the chattering class and typically these folks are introduced to us as 'Al Hunt, WSJ...' or 'Bob Novak, Chicago blah...'
Armstrong should have been introduced as "Armstrong, doing adds for the Department of education'
It's one thing if the National Review, say, chooses to run editorials in support of the same thing's Armstong is supporting. They don't have a direct economic tie.
Wrong. Read the transcript from the CNN show Crossfire. It clearly indicates that there were ads made and used.vraiblonde said:
http://www.armstrongwilliams.com/ME2/Audiences/default.asp
Okay, now I'm totally confused. This interview makes it sound like Williams has some show that commercials were aired on - absolutely nothing wrong with that. But that's not what the original story was - it made it sound like he was paid to promote NCLB in his own commentary on the talk shows and in his column, which is something else entirely.Ken King said:
So which is it? Williams himself says:
So if it was all on the up-and-up, what's he apologizing for?
Join the club, I'm as confused as you. Maybe it is because he was paid to provide ads on NCLB and also did his own commentary on NCLB in differing venues that is the problem. I just don't know.vraiblonde said:
Maybe as the original story is from Canada they are just trying to keep the Mad Cow stories out of the headlines by scraping up crap like this.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
We're all confused because we, like 99.9999% of the population, never listen to Armstrong Williams... which makes me think that the real crime here was giving $240,000 to someone nobody cares about. Hell, I'm in that category and I would have been glad to support No Child Left Behind for a measely $120,000. I would have been a bargain!
By the way... I just read through today's Florida Times Union at lunch. There were five articles dealing with politics. All of them had a Bush or Republican-negative view, and all of them were by-lined by reporters at The Washington Post. None... not one... of any other of the stories dealing with the tsunami or anything else happening in the world was by-lined by The Washington Post. Must be a coincidence.
By the way... I just read through today's Florida Times Union at lunch. There were five articles dealing with politics. All of them had a Bush or Republican-negative view, and all of them were by-lined by reporters at The Washington Post. None... not one... of any other of the stories dealing with the tsunami or anything else happening in the world was by-lined by The Washington Post. Must be a coincidence.
I didn't realize he had his own show, but I've seen him on the talk shows and read his column from time to time. If you showed me a picture of him and said, "Who's this?", I could tell you it was Armstrong Williams. I think people are as familiar with him as they are with Katrina VANdenHOOvel or George Will or any of the rest of 'em.Bruzilla said:
Lenny
Lovin' being Texican
vraiblonde said:
There is only one thing to do to solve the entire problem. We must work diligently to eliminate the Department of Education. It is a political pay-back from Jimmy Carter to the organized education guild as a reward for delivering the educators' votes in 1976. It's time to kill this liberal coven!