The GOP can’t find anybody to actually stick up for its “No Child Left Behind” program, so they have to hire a commentator for USD 240,000 to shill for them. Unlike other commentators (dem/rep) who draw lines and have full disclosure re: their advocacy/consulting and their on-air commentary, Williams tried to slip this one through.
A further update on this (and some great commentary) can be found in the Frank Rich column in the NYTimes. Some paragraphs are included here for those who don’t have membership to NYTimes yet.
nytimes.com/2005/01/16/arts/ … ogin&8hpib
[quote]On this particular “Crossfire,” the featured guest was Armstrong Williams, a conservative commentator, talk-show host and newspaper columnist (for papers like The Washington Times and The Detroit Free Press, among many others, according to his Web site). Thanks to investigative reporting by USA Today, he had just been unmasked as the frontman for a scheme in which $240,000 of taxpayers’ money was quietly siphoned to him through the Department of Education and a private p.r. firm so that he would “regularly comment” upon (translation: shill for) the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind policy in various media venues during an election year. Given that “Crossfire” was initially conceived as a program for tough interrogation and debate, you’d think that the co-hosts still on duty after Mr. Carlson’s departure might try to get some answers about this scandal, whose full contours, I suspect, we are only just beginning to discern.
Mr. Williams has repeatedly said in his damage-control press appearances that he was being paid the $240,000 only to promote No Child Left Behind. He also routinely says that he made the mistake of taking the payola because he wasn’t part of the “media elite” and therefore didn’t know “the rules and guidelines” of journalistic conflict-of-interest. His own public record tells us another story entirely. While on the administration payroll he was not only a cheerleader for No Child Left Behind but also for President Bush’s Iraq policy and his performance in the presidential debates. And for a man who purports to have learned of media ethics only this month, Mr. Williams has spent an undue amount of time appearing as a media ethicist on both CNN and the cable news networks of NBC.
He took to CNN last October to give his own critique of the CBS News scandal, pointing out that the producer of the Bush-National Guard story, Mary Mapes, was guilty of a conflict of interest because she introduced her source, the anti-Bush partisan Bill Burkett, to a Kerry campaign operative, Joe Lockhart. In this Mr. Williams’s judgment was correct, but grave as Ms. Mapes’s infraction was, it isn’t quite in the same league as receiving $240,000 from the United States Treasury to propagandize for the Bush campaign on camera. Mr. Williams also appeared with Alan Murray on CNBC to trash Kitty Kelley’s book on the Bush family, on CNN to accuse the media of being Michael Moore’s “p.r. machine” and on Tina Brown’s CNBC talk show to lambaste Mr. Stewart for doing a “puff interview” with John Kerry on “The Daily Show” (which Mr. Williams, unsurprisingly, seems to think is a real, not a fake, news program).
But perhaps the most fascinating Williams TV appearance took place in December 2003, the same month that he was first contracted by the government to receive his payoffs. At a time when no one in television news could get an interview with Dick Cheney, Mr. Williams, of all “journalists,” was rewarded with an extended sit-down with the vice president for the Sinclair Broadcast Group, a nationwide owner of local stations affiliated with all the major networks. In that chat, Mr. Cheney criticized the press for its coverage of Halliburton and denounced “cheap shot journalism” in which “the press portray themselves as objective observers of the passing scene, when they obviously are not objective.”
This is a scenario out of “The Manchurian Candidate.” Here we find Mr. Cheney criticizing the press for a sin his own government was at that same moment signing up Mr. Williams to commit. The interview is broadcast by the same company that would later order its ABC affiliates to ban Ted Koppel’s “Nightline” recitation of American casualties in Iraq and then propose showing an anti-Kerry documentary, “Stolen Honor,” under the rubric of “news” in prime time just before Election Day. (After fierce criticism, Sinclair retreated from that plan.) Thus the Williams interview with the vice president, implicitly presented as an example of the kind of “objective” news Mr. Cheney endorses, was in reality a completely subjective, bought-and-paid-for fake news event for a broadcast company that barely bothers to fake objectivity and both of whose chief executives were major contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign. The Soviets couldn’t have constructed a more ingenious or insidious plot to bamboozle the citizenry. [/quote]
kos, the most high profile liberal blogger(and 100 times more influential than williams), has been taking undisclosed payola from lib sources for years. shrug
Flipper:
-
Do you actually have a point? Any media outlet can take money from advertisers – and hence CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, some websites, etc. all do run advertisements for a wide variety of private groups. However, the issue with Armstrong Williams is that the guy was taking illegal payola from the government to shill for Bush-administration programs in his role as a “commentator” – thus mixing up news with paid advocacy.
-
Do you actually have any proof or information of wrongdoing? I provided extensive information to back up my posts, and somehow you waltz in and lay an egg of no relevance but provide no backup whatsoever for it.
-
It would be pretty funny if we had the same standards of accountability for bloggers as is maintained for legit media outlets? Given the record so far, I guess half the right-wing blog spots would be in daily trouble for libel, where as the pro-America websites taking on Bush and his cronies would probably be raking in the Pullitzers…
[quote]Moulitsas’ crime isn’t taking money from Howard Dean. He, too, can get away with a suspended sentence for insufficiently disclosing his role in the Dean campaign once he was off the payroll. The hanging offense is that Moulitsas took money from other, undisclosed, political clients. And while he may have disclosed
Undisclosed? The guy behind dailykos.com gave complete disclosure about his consulting work and was doing nothing illegal.
Unlike Armstrong Williams who didn’t disclose until he was caught out promising that the payola (taxpayer money, no less) would get “No Child Left Behind” primo coverage, along with lots of favorable interviews with the DoE guys.
Wow, Flipper, you must be really rooting around in the bottom of the barrel. It’s pretty embarrassing that I have to know more about the strengths and weaknesses of your arguments than you do. Please go do some research now! Chop-chop! Hurry off!
huh? kos said he took some payment from sources which he refuses to disclose. repeat, he refuses to disclose who he took those payments from. did you actually read the article i linked? do you just not understand what the word “undisclosed” means?
i’ll do some more research if you promise to learn how to read. 
Here’s what Kos said back in 2003:
http://www.dailykos.net/archives/002972.html
So Kos basically said “I’m taking money from certain sources but, other than Dean, I will not disclose which sources”, whereas (as far as I know) Williams said nothing at all. Thus, based on what I’ve read so far, I agree with MFGR that Kos and Williams are not in the same boat.
On the other hand, Flipper is clearly well informed in stating that Kos is a “blogger getting payola from undisclosed sources”, as Kos says this explicitly on his site.
for the record, a non-disclosure agreement pretty much means he’s not giving “complete disclosure” since, well…that’s the point of a non-disclosure agreement. 
Agreed.
I’d also add that, although I don’t think Kos and Williams are the same thing, that does not mean that I think Kos is less of a big deal. On the one hand you’ve got a relatively unknown guy with complete non-disclosure. On the other hand, you have a extremely influential guy with incomplete disclosure. Which carries a higher chance of people being mislead? 
Which would be more egregious?
(a) Joe Schmo going on a stock tip show on Nowheresville community college radio and completely neglecting to disclose that he owns shares in one of the stocks he’s advising;
(b) Charles Schwab writing a book on stock advice, wherein he writes in a paragraph in the intro chapter “I personally own shares in some of the stocks I’m suggesting you buy, but I will not disclose which ones.”
Debatable I guess. So even though I agree with MFGR that there’s a difference, I’m not sure how much more worked up I’d get over one vs. the other.
The Slate article only includes an accusation but provides no proof, chronology, or even any attempt to contact Kos. Further, the article doesn’t even support what you say it does. Looks like you’re the one who needs help reading as well as with research.
Payola? If you review the article, you can see that Teachout is talking purely of what may have been in the Dean campaign’s line of thinking when it hired Markos as a consultant … with no information whatsoever about what was in Markos’ mind. Now, if you’re going to slam Markos’ actions, you have to find something he actually did – i.e., that the money made him change his website content. Meanwhile, you have a guy with a clearly partisan blog that clearly pro-Dean before, during and after his time as a consultant with no noticeable difference.
Armstrong Williams, in contrast, made his motivations very clear in that he put together a written proposal to the DoE in which he outlined what he wanted to do for them in exchange for money.
Disclosure? Markos’ publishes full disclosure about his consultancy (see dailykos.net/archives/002972.html), meanwhile Armstrong Williams hides his affiliation… the better to foist Bush administration propaganda onto the American public during the election season.
Pretty funny discussion at andrewsullivan.com/:
Source of funds? Markos’ is a private individual with a highly partisan blog who did political consulting and who took money from other private individuals in a grand thing we call “commerce.” Meanwhile, Armstrong Williams took nearly a quarter-million of taxpayer money (that’s our money…) and used it for election-season propaganda for the Bush administration’s failed education policies.
Illegal? Armstrong William’s actions may be (see usatoday.com/news/washington … ouse_x.htm)
Again, Daily Kos wins – nothing they’ve done could possibly be illegal. Looks like Flipper has a lot of reading lessons and research ahead of him!
to support your argument that kos has published full disclosure about all his sources of funds, you link to an article where kos states that he has non-disclosure agreements preventing him from giving full disclosure. ah mofan, you really make it way too easy. 
Flipper, I presume that is the end of your response and that all other points I raised shall stand to differentiate the situations between Armstrong Williams and Markos. Markos has fully disclosed that he was doing political consulting. Williams said nothing.
Do you think giving Armstrong Williams USD 240,000 was a good use of taxpayer money? I mean, if these unfunded “No Child Left Behind” programs are really so good, the Bush administration shouldn’t have to pay somebody to talk about how good it is and pretend he’s providing some objectivity. Williams put his plan to pervert his news coverage in writing, whereas you have thus far shown no information that Markos changed his blog content at all to reflect his outside activities.
how much money did kos take?
was it taxpayer/government money?
was it illegal in any way?
did it affect his posts?
did it influence who he told his readers to give their campaign contributions to?
the answer is, YOU DON’T KNOW and he won’t tell anyone.
so do you still think that kos gave “full disclosure” or are you now willing to admit you were wrong in all your previous posts where you claimed he gave full disclosure?
Don’t know, but he’ll eventually file taxes for whatever he made and that’s between him and the IRS.
No. Unlike Amstrong Williams who was selling his position specifically to shill for a Bush administration program during the election season.
No. Unlike the quite likely illegality of the Armstrong Williams payola – paid propaganda of the sort that the government is not supposed to do.
Look at the Kos materials before, during and after. Doesn’t look like his viewpoints changed. He clearly liked Dean before, during and after the consultancy.
Who knows. Who knows what is in the minds of the readers? However, the general appearance is that his content of his site did not change during the time when he did consulting work. Sounds like the consulting work was more along technical lines as well – just as Karl Rove is widely accepted as a pioneer in using direct-mail to reach voters, Kos’ role appears to have been to tell candidates see how they might use the internet more effectively.
I knew the answers to most of them. You want to know how? By reading. You might think to do that some in the future.
Did he hide at all that he was doing consulting work? No. Were some of his consulting arrangements covered by non-disclosure agreements that covered some of that information? Sure. Did he to all appearances disclose everything he could including the fact that he was doing consulting work? Yes.
Meanwhile Armstrong Williams to all appearances deliberately peddled his media presence in a secretive and likely highly illegal manner to the Bush administration during an election. 
Our taxpayer dollars at work…
still waiting for you to admit you were wrong to suggest that kos gave FULL DISCLOSURE while linking to an article in which kos stated that NON-DISCLOSURE agreements prevented him from giving full disclosure. simple grammatical error and you can’t even admit that. :bravo:
Interesting, you want to quibble over what you perceive to be a grammatical error. Fine… considering the comprehensive beating you’ve sustained on all substantial issues regarding Armstrong William’s likely illegal behavior versus the completely legal behavior of Kos, I guess you can try to use this to retain your final shreds of dignity. :bravo: :bravo:
mofan, i’m glad you have so much in-depth knowledge of arrangements currently being kept secret by kos, but your half-assed guesses about who gave kos how much money for what reason are just that…half-assed guesses.
you don’t know who gave kos the money. you don’t know how much money changed hands. you don’t know where that money came from. and you don’t know how that money might have influenced kos’s blog. but, of course, lack of knowledge never stopped you from pulling an argument out of your ass before. 
i’m glad to see that you are not pushing the idiotic “kos gave full disclosure” line anymore, though. it was pretty embarassing when the link you posted directly contradicted your own argument. even more embarassing was the fact that you kept refusing to admit you were wrong.
Look at Kos’ blog. Same before, same during, same after the time he spent as a consultant. No evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, plus to all appearances he disclosed everything he could disclose about the consulting work.
Look at Armstrong Williams – writes up a proposal offering to sell his onair time to the DoE. Takes USD 240,000 of taxpayer money (our money) specifically to shill for the DoE’s failed “No Child Left Behind” policy during the election season. Turns out that this sort of propaganda is illegal. Not the first time the Bush Administration has been tagged on this, either.
As an American citizen, I think it’s ridiculous that my tax dollars are going to fund bullshit propaganda during an election year. There’s plenty of legitimate opportunities for the Bush administration to defend or explain their policies, but giving payola to Armstrong Williams is not one of them.
Looks like it’s about time for you to write an apology to Kos… nothing he’s done is anywhere in the same league as Armstrong Williams’ gross breaches of ethics and quite likely the law. Do you need help with the wording? Perhaps it could go something like this:
[quote]Draft Apology for Flipper to send to Kos
Dear Kos, I am heartily sorry for trying to compare your open and widely known consulting work with the sneaky, surreptitious crap foisted upon the American people by Mr. Armstrong Williams. I realize that the Bush administration’s education policies are so weak that they have to make illegal payments to get anyone willing to say positive things about them. Clearly they found someone just as much of a sneaky little conniving fuck as the POTUS to do it! That said, I really hope bygones can be bygones on this. I hope to be a loyal reader soon!
your friend,
Flippy[/quote]
mofan, you have no idea what kos did because he won’t tell anyone. you have no idea how much money was involved. nor do you have any idea if it was illegal. of course, lack of knowledge is enough for you to absolve kos of any wrong doing.
looks like it’s time for you to write an apology to the forum for your braindead posts.
[quote]Draft apology for mofan to send to Forumosa
Dear Forumosa,
I am sorry for my idotic posts on this thread. I realize that my insistence on claiming that Kos gave full disclosure was completely pathetic since the link I used to support my claim had Kos explaining why he WASN’T giving full disclosure. I am sorry that I make up arguments without knowing any of the facts involved. How do I know that the money Kos got was legal? I have no fucking clue since nobody knows who gave Kos how much in payola. I like to make things up because it looks good for my arguments. I realize that I can, in no way, ever criticize a liberal. Sorry for my overbearing hypocrisy. I beg your forgiveness and promise that I won’t indulge in such brainless posting in the future(though we all know I will anyway).
Pathetically Yours,
Mofan
[/quote]