Posted on 01/09/2005 3:16:06 AM PST by Anita1
On CNN Friday morning Bill Hemmer took Williams to task for "ethical questions" over not disclosing his public relations grant.
But other "ethical" issues were not raised on CNN, such as:
No mention was made on CNN of the frequent interviews of movie and TV stars on major networks, including CNN, where there is no dislosure of paid advertising. For example, major movie distribution firms buy advertisements on the same networks that also air the promotional interviews with such stars - with no disclosure whatsoever.
CBS's "60 Minutes" promoted several anti-Bush authors and books, including Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" - without disclosing that the publisher was Simon Schuster, a division of Viacom which also owns CBS.
The inappropriate use of taxpayer dollars for public broadcasting programs that serve as pure political propaganda. Bill Moyer's "Now" program is just one example.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
From what I have read so far, it seems that the Education Dept. which is headed up by Rod Paige (who is also black ) was the one to make a decision to do this action. So why doesn't the media go after him? Could it be because Williams is more visible and has more clout with his columns and TV shows?
But, NewsMax is right - if the liberals want to cry foul - they should also examine themselves for all the times they had liberal columnists and Hollywood types go in TV (while being paid for their agenda and opinion) - especially during the election season.
End of story.
Of course Williams is a bad boy ... a bad bad boy ... a black who strayed off the plantation and must be held up to others as an example to other blacks of what will happen to them, should they dare become emancipated from their owners.
Moyers can be used by the Dims as an example of ... "why what can you expect from whitey?" and just slough it all off.
The left never lets its hypocrisy get in the way of a good whine fest.
I've always liked Armstrong Williams. He used bad judgement on this on and so did the Bush people in offering to promote their agenda through him. If Armstrong is a strong supporter of 'no child left behind', he can rally that cause on his radio and TV programs WITHOUT being paid by taxpayers money. Example: Neil Boortz rallies for the 'Fair Tax' every radio program, yet, doesn't receive a cent of taxpayer or private money from anyone.
This amounts to the government paying for propaganda. Sorry, but that's how I see it. Yes, PBS does it all the time, but if I'm not mistaken, this is illegal. If this goes to an investigation, it would be a great way to give the entire government subsidized broadcast industry a giant enema.
Williams screwed up. End of story.
Apples and oranges. That's comparing stars whom EVERYONE knows are out to plug their latest shows/movies with someone who nobody ever would have expected was doing infomercials for Rod Paige. Pul-eeze.
Not to excuse what Williams did, but we all remember when CNN hired Wesley Clark and he had free air time to condemn the Bush administration, all while he was promoting HIS plan and his future presidential bid.
Even if one is to accept the idea of a PR firm paying Williams for his advocacy (an idea I'm wary about but willing to accept), the absence of disclosure is the final straw. A quarter of a million dollars is not a sum which one forgets when advocating policy in print. If he would have revealed the payments in every instance of his advocacy, there would be no ethical problem.
One can still remember reports of the 'enlightened' marching in pro-abortion parades, and writing about it in the Times or Post the next week. The idea that Williams sold out to the Administration is only to say that the entire LM, from academia to the music biz to the Dem Party to Fannie Mae swindlers, are completely sold out to a leftwing socialist agenda and will twist the 'news' and either calumniate or boost this or that public candidate accordingly. This last election was partially about that continuing grasp for power by the leftist media, completely sold out for the Dem Party and any stupid, leftist notion that would otherwise find an important place in any candidate's platform.
That's why - talk radio, the web, even FOX for a time. That's why Armstrong Williams, not because he was sold out, but because everyone else to which he provided the alternative - was.
Maybe if Williams was against "No Child Left Behind" before the government contract and for it after, it could be considered a bribe or unethical, but how is supporting an ally of a policy "illegal"?
How about attempting to understand your subject before jumping in next time?
What absurd reasoning.
Have they ever done this with a leftist media host?
He'd have people on to advocate their causes, cause for which those were recieving grants from Moyer's own "foundation".
It does have the look of "cronyism" but the author is right. We've all seen enough morning talk shows pumping books and movies and political agendas in which the networks have a financial stake.
Williams is the target because of his success.
Are you certain he doesn't receive a cent of taxpayer money? I don't care about private money but I'll always, from now on, wonder about any commentator taking my tax money under the table. Anyone who does should go to prison along with everyone who authorized the payments. I DON'T PAY TAXES FOR SOME CORRUPT POLITICIAN TO USE TO BUY PROPOGANDA.
Williams was paid with my tax dollars and hid the fact. CNN and everyone else can use their personal money anyway they please. My tax dollars are a different story, I don't pay them for some corrupt politician to use to promote his own agenda.
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.