It was revealed recently by USA today that Armstrong Williams, a commentator, received $240,000 to promote NCLB and Secretary of Education Paige.


Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law

The contract was issued from the Department of Education through the Ketchum Public Relations firm. This is the same agency hired to do the fake news videos for the Department of Health and Human Services that were determined to be in violation of the 1998 Appropriations Bill (Federal law) last May.


)Link


Bush Administration's Ads Deemed Illegal "Propaganda"


The questions for debate are:


Who is to blame and for what? (Armstrong Williams? Department of Education? Bush Administration?

Was this illegal?

If so who if anybody should be held accountable for the lawbreaking?

Who is to blame and for what? (Armstrong Williams? Department of Education? Bush Administration?)

Who is to blame? Armstrong Williams is, who

Also whoever in the Department of Education went ahead and contacted the Ketchum public relations firm to set this up, and those who took part.

Was this illegal?

If it is illegal, I suspect that the law it breaks is broken all the time, and that someone who chose to research carefully this administration and previous ones would find it to be so.

If so who if anybody should be held accountable for the lawbreaking?

In the case of promoting the NCLB and Secretary Paige, there will be next to nothing done about it. It perpetuates the perception that the politicians in Washington are an oily bunch who go to extreme lengths to stretch the law, just stopping short of actually breaking it. If it is in fact broken, then their fallback position is that nobody actually got hurt as a result of the breach.

Taking unfair advantage of connections made in Washington is nothing new. In this case, it's like sneaking extra Monopoly money and a Get Out of Jail Free card from your game at home to play the game elsewhere, or more seriously, an Ace to a poker game. Anything in order to win, the action can be rationalized later.

If you are one who believes that the end truly justifies the means, and you think that the disgracefully low-funded NCLB is going to actually help the country, you probably won't object. To me, the fact that what they have been doing makes them squirm when confronted with the light of publicity speaks volumes. And although I don't know whether this offense is prosecutable, I feel it's still wrong.

I don't blame the Bush Administration or the Department of Education for trying to pimp their policies. I blame Armstrong Williams for being so willing to be a whore.

If someone were to offer me almost a quarter of a million dollars to say nice things about them, I'd be hard pressed not to sign the check and sing their praises too. Williams had a out. He says he's not a journalist. He's a "commentator."

And no, I don't know what the difference is. Apparently, at least $240,000.

Was it illegal? Maybe so, maybe no. It definitely is a conflict of interest. What it does demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt is how politics and money shapes the media and why the media says you need to be focused on this and not that.

Bush Administration propaganda brought to you by Armstrong Williams, male prostitute.

I can't really dispute your characterization of Mr. Williams. But, I would point out that the there are more "whores" among the ranks of political "commentators" than there are objective analysts who don't just parrot the DNC/RNC/Green talking points or take garbage from partisan web pages (i.e., dubious sources) and just repost it without independent verification.

President "This will not happen on my watch" Bush never takes reponsiblity or fires anyone when something like this happens(9/11, WMD in Iraq)

The illegal question can be decided by the congress and courts. I'm only outraged because so few conservatives are outraged.

It's an outrage for a administration that proports to some, to be for limited government. It would be as crazy if President Clinton had paid Dan Rather $241,000 to sell "small government".

When you hear conservatives gloss this over, you'll know they stand for nothing but being anti-Democrat Party.

Who is to blame and for what? (Armstrong Williams? Department of Education? Bush Administration?

All of the above mentioned are to be blamed for what happened. The bush administration for their intentions. The DE for going along and Williams for being stupid. My question is where are the religious right leaders who decides everything thats immoral or moral? No outcry?? I guess it only applies to issues like gay marriage. This issue will just blow away like all others unfortunately.
The public just seems mum on the issue.


Was this illegal?

Clearly illegal. But what do you do when those who make the law don't abide by it.



If so who if anybody should be held accountable for the lawbreaking?

Has Bush made anybody accountable for mistakes? He can't even admit any on his own. Lets just face it, polticians can get away with almost anything. Its nothing new.

What law(s) were broken? How is this different than offering an unqualified intern a $90K per year government job just because she was the president's "girlfriend"?

I think that what Williams did killed his credibility and was unethical, but I'm not sure it was "illegal".

To you other points, Congress makes the laws, not the president. And a referendum was held last November to hold Bush accountable for all of his actions as president.

He was re-elected.

I re-tract my statement, he probably didn’t violate any laws. (have to do more re-search).
But I agree with you that it was un-ethical.

In terms of lawmaking, Congress passes the laws but I do believe the President has to sign it for it to officially become law. Also regarding the referendum comment on Bush, last I checked he is the ONLY re-elected President to have approval ratings under 50%. Some political capital.

Williams has issued a public apology in his syndicated column: My apology



Was this illegal? It doesn't seem to be. If a talk show runs an issue ad and also agrees with the substance of that ad, is that illegal? Unless it can be shown that the government money changed Williams' position on the issue, then this isn't such a big issue.

Williams answers this question:


The fact is that the Dept. of Education has a certain demographic that it wanted to approach: black people. It therefore advertised on a black commentator's show in support of NCLB. That commentator was already for the NCLB program.

The government runs issue ads all the time: I have seen Social security, medicare, and other issue ads on TV. What makes this one different?

Actually, you're only partially correct. The vote can go back to congress and with a 2/3 vote (on both sides), it can be passed completely with out the President. Civics 101.

In reference to the 50% approval rating, please consider the source of these polls and how they're calculated. We all saw the results of the election and were all privy to the polling data prior to the election. The President won the popular vote and the electoral vote handily, where as polling data up until Nov 2 would've lead us to believe otherwise. Why? I personally understand think that these polls are used for political purposes as opposed to providing objective information...

What makes this different is that when the government runs an ad you know it is an ad. Not a news broadcast. Not an op-ed piece. Not anything but a particular program being advocated by a particular advocate.

Armstrong Williams acted as a paid advocate for the Bush Administration to advance the No Child Left Behind program. He took $240,000 to do so. He was paid to peddle a product that he had a specific interest in and did not reveal that he was essentially a paid consultant doing so.

That is not illegal. It is a breach of ethics. Ethics is what this comes down to and Williams played fast and loose in not disclosing his insider relationship in promoting the NCLB program. If Armstrong loves NCLB, that's all well and good, but don't come off as a independent commentator, when your opinions have already been bought and sold.

“I thought we in the media were supposed to be watchdogs, not lapdogs,” said NABJ Vice President-Print Bryan Monroe, assistant vice president-news at Knight Ridder. “I thought we had an administration headed by a president who took an oath to uphold the First Amendment, not try to rent it.”

http://www.nabj.org/newsroom/news_releases...018p-1629c.html

I don't know what your line of business is Amlord, but mine requires that if you have a interest in the story you're promoting, then you should put a disclaimer in the reporting. Remember when 60 Minutes was justifiably criticized for running an interview with Richard Clarke whose book criticizing the Bush Administration was published by a subsidary of Viacom that also owns CBS? That's called "full disclosure" and if Williams had added just one sentence in his columns stating that he was a paid consultant by the Bush Administration, he might still have a column to express himself in.

I don't think your understanding of the situation is accurate, Nighttimer.

According to Williams (grain of salt here), he accepted an advertising campaign for the NCLB campaign for his TV show. According to him, he was an advocate for NCLB prior to that.

Let's assume that the government was pushing Social Security reform and I was a political commentator. If the government runs ads on my show (Amlord Live) about a government reform that I am already for (see my commentary over the past several months here on AD), does that make my comments any less valid? I already held the position on the issue before the government decided pay me to air their commercials. Should I disclose that the government was running ads on my show (wouldn't that be obvious to viewers?)?

I have never heard of Armstrong Williams. I have no idea who is is, when his show is on, nothing. I don't care how he forms his opinions. I only care whether or not he can convey his message with some sense of logic and persuasion. It is the same with all other authors and all other topics.

The fact that he ran ads about a campaign that he was already backing means little to me, just as the fact that Fox News ran Bush ads (and Kerry ads) means little to me.

Amlord, I'm not sure if I agree with your interpretation. Advertising implies a business transaction. It was not the producers of the show, or the show itself that was paid in this case; it was the 'talent.' Lets say I have my own radio show. If I paid Rush Limbaugh $50 to say on air "I met this Joe guy the other day, and he made a lot of sense" without any declarations of his fiduciary relationship, would you consider that advertising as well? Because as far as the article describes, that is the sort of promotion that took place.

Well Armstrong Williams thinks he did something wrong and his income is going to suffer for compromising his ethics in failing to provide full disclosure of his role, not in receiving money to help make fake news video tapes or making commercials on behalf of the education department and a Bush administration program, but because he accepted money that asked him to use his influence to get fellow media figures to address the NCLB Act.


Agency paid commentator to push Bush education plan

To focus only on the part of the contract that gave him money to produce legitimate ads (or possibly fake news tapes that were not quite legitimately acknowledging the fact that they were government advertisements) is to miss a big part of the problem. This is a journalists ethical problem, BTW, as pointed out by NT above, when Williams writes opinion columns in favor of the NCLB but fails to point out that he has received income from the Department of Education in support of this issue. The business itself could be looked at as part of a quid pro quo that gave William's business some money in order to get him to write supportive columns of NCLB in return (of the page of the contract of course) Full Disclosure

I put most of this quote in the original post.



Original USA Today story

This contract was not about permitting the Department of Education to air commercials for NCLB. This was a payment to help promote the NCLB and have a black columnist use his influence to persuade of members of of America's Black Forum to address the NCLB. Additionally Williams was involved in securing tv spots for Secretary Paige. I think you are misunderstanding the situation Amlord.

Now as for a law that might have been broken by members of the Bush Administration. I offer up as an exhibit, the Federal Appropriations Act of 1998 as linked to in the first post.

When this issue was raised in May in regards to the distribution of tapes by the Department of Health and Human Services, the GAO interpreted the action as a violation of the 1998 Appropriations Bill, it also commented that it was unlikely that any legal action would be taken. The reason cited for this, beyond the fact that the GAO lacks any enforcement powers, was that



link


However, now that this has occurred again connected to the same agency hired to do the fake news videos for the Department of Health and Human Services, isn’t it reasonable to now argue that administration officials (this time in the Department of Education) can be reasonably believed to knowingly and willfully violate the Appropriations Bill?
(Ketchum public relations firm) link

These Democratic members of the House of Representatives felt that the issue was serious enough to send a letter to the president requesting that this issue be looked into and they detailed this episode not as an isolated incident but as part of a pattern.



Their official letter can be found in this link.
link

I respecfully disagree, Amlord. I am not the end-all and be-all or know-it-all regarding the ethics of journalism. However, if bias in the media means anything at all it is incumbent upon anyone in the profession to be forthcoming when even the appearance of a conflict of interest exists.

Armstrong Williams illustrates one of the problems with journalism. ANYONE can can create a blog, become a columnist, a talking head on television or pontificate about the burning issues of the day without having spent one day in Journalism 101.

The Society of Professional Journalists, of which I am a former member, has established a canon of ethics for journalists. Not everyone in the profession knows it, but most of them follow it.

Williams says he isn't a journalist but follows the rules of conduct. Well, it appears he missed a few of them:

Journalists should:

* Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
* Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
* Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
* Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
* Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
* Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
* Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp



Armstrong Williams is a prominent black politicial commentator. He worked at one time on the staff of Senator Strom Thurmond and has appeared on numerous programs such as CNN's Crossfire and Black Entertainment Television's Lead Story. Williams is savvy, skillful and articulate voice for black conservatives (which is why I am somewhat surprised that he was stupid enough to get caught up in this mess). If Williams told me it was raining outside, I'd probably put on sunglasses, short sleeves and start mowing the lawn. We agree on practically nothing, but I recognize him as a formidable advocate for his philosopy.

Eeyore and Ultimatejoe, have pretty much nailed what the crux of the matter is and why this flap reflects poorly upon Williams. As you well know, Amlord, I was a supporter of John Kerry. I proclaimed it on this board and in the column I write. Now suppose John Kerry on one of his many trips to Ohio, happens to read my column, likes what I wrote and thinks maybe I'm the guy to help him energize the black vote.

Kerry calls me, offers me $240,000 to say nice things about him and I (being both broke and sane) take him up on the deal. At that point, I'm no longer just a journalist expressing his opinion, but a paid spokesperson for a political campaign. In that case I have one of two options: Take a hiatus from my column and go on the campaign trail as a spokesperson or make it clear as glass is that my opinion is not being offered simply because I agree with Kerry but because I'm being PAID for that opinion as well.

Nighttimer, I agree with 99.9% of what your saying. However, I find this to be not quite disturbing, but a little off.

That is the beauty of the free press, anyone can be heard, no matter what. You're right in that it is a double edged sword, allowing any partisan hack [cough, Ann Coulter] to use a national stage to pedal an agenda. Regardless, that problem comes with the free press, unfortunately.


Yes. They're all to blame, Mr. Williams did do a decent job of selling himself off, the Dept. of Edu. [cough useless] clearly was unethical, and because the Bush Administration probably, if nothing else, didn't try to stop this from happening, they are to blame as well.

Not as far as I can see, but it was exceptionally unethical.

CP

I too agree mostly with nighttimer, though I think too much is being made of his status as a conservative. Would there be the same level of outrage if he were a liberal? If he were white?

I am more disturbed, Williams ethical shortcomings aside, with the fact that our government spent $240,000 of taxpayer dollars on a political campaign that though I agree with, had plenty of airtime during the presidential campaign, and still is a potent topic of pundits and politicians.

It reminds me of the movie 'Dave' where Kevin Kline asks one of his cabinet members why they were spending money on an ad campaign to make consumers feel good about a product they had already bought.
Unless I'm misreading the dates in question.......we, through our elected representatives, already bought NCLB, for better or for worse

On my part if this was done by a democratic administration I would be quite upset. Granted if I only heard about it from a Conservative blog I would think the situation was overblown, but I think both of our parties have gone on holiday when it comes to ethics and they seem to not care too much when the fine line of the law is tread upon.

I would be more upset if he were working with Democratic politicians. I don't feel much distinction about the white/black thing. I didn't know Williams race when I heard the story and did some research on the subject.

DTOM I am sure you can remember the fire stroms of outrage from Conservative and Republican Americans with many of the actions and policies of President Clinton, so I assume you are really asking would liberals be upset if this was a Democratic administration abusing federal funds.

I am heartened that you are more concerned about the use of government money to promote established laws. This seems more the real story than finding a pundit to hire out his voice and pen.

I did get this one wrong.

I guess I put too much stock into Williams' apology. What he did there was continue to mis-characterize what happened here.

I agree that accepting money to deliver opinions of a certain stance is unethical. I was under the impression that the money was for an advertising campaign. Since that is not the case, my stance on this changes completely.

Mea culpa.

If the act was illegal, then the blame goes on the Bush administration education officials.

Should heads roll? Why not?

Bill Clinton nearly lost his job for lying about a consensual sex act with an above-age partner, which was not illegal.

The whole theme proffered by this Bush administration when it first began campaigning in 1999 was that it would usher in a new era of honesty and respect at the White House.

But there’s nothing honest about claiming to be so interested in attracting African-Americans into your Big Tent, then going about it the lazy way.

Basically bribing someone with stature in the Black community to peddle a program with dubious merits. Instead of doing some actual legwork and reaching out to this community in a physical and tangible way.

What the Bush administration did was cheap and tawdry, not to mention completely unethical.

Seems Mr. williams is not the only one being paid by the Bushies.
Maggie Gallagher admits to receiving $21,500 in 2002 to write materials related to the administration's promotion of civil marriage. She did notdisclosed the income and continued to write as an independent journalist on the issue of marriage, especially the Federal Marriage Amendment. her defens is a s follows:


She is saying it was a pitance compared to williamsd amount, she was not paid to hbe a hack but a consultant while staying a claimed independant writer from the governement.When asked if she should have disclosed this seh replies:




http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblo...668651058435963
makes you wonder how many more unbiased "independant" writers are out there.

And yet another;


http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001355.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/...s/index_np.html

Who is to blame and for what? (Armstrong Williams? Department of Education? Bush Administration?

Wasn't this under Rod Paige's watch at the DoE? He's gone. He was serving at the pleasure of the President, hand picked for his brilliant performance during the Houston Miracle in TX. They figured out how to "cook the books" and get their district looking good. I guess, since that was made public years ago by 60 minutes, et al.


Was this illegal?

Acording to the law listed at the beginning of this article, it is.


If so who if anybody should be held accountable for the lawbreaking?



Well, not like it's any secret, but it looks like one more reason for BUSH's IMPEACHMENT. http://impeachbush.org/