Posted on 01/10/2005 6:38:47 AM PST by mhking
Reaction to the Armstrong Williams-Department of Education scandal was swift and furious over the weekend, as I wasn't the only one to make a lot of noise on the issue (LaShawn Barber, Michelle Malkin, Rob Bernard, DC Thornton, Amy Ridenour, Sisu, Nate Livingston, Expertise, Booker Rising, Eduwonk, Wizbang, The American Prospect's Tapped column, Powerline & others too numerous to mention).
In the wake of Friday's revelations, Tribune Media Services, who syndicated his column to newspapers nationally, abruptly dropped his column, and most likely, his television show, The Right Side with Armstrong Williams (syndicated on Sinclair stations and aired nationally on cable/satellite networks TVOne and The Liberty Channel) will be cancelled as well. No word on his radio show, which airs on a handful of stations across the nation.
Williams was apologetic in this morning's column, appearing on TownHall.com.
I understand that I exercised bad judgment in running paid advertising for an issue that I frequently write about in my column. People need to know that my column is uncorrupted by any outside influences. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for my bad judgment, and to better explain the circumstances.People have accused me, in various forums over the weekend, of wanting to 'throw Armstrong under the bus.' Nothing could be further from the truth. I certainly want conservative blacks of all stripes and from all quarters to thrive and succeed.The fact is, I run a small business. I am CEO and manage the syndication and advertising for my television show. In between juggling my commentaries and media appearances, I stepped over the line. This has never happened before. In fact, my company has never worked on a government contract. Nor have we ever received compensation for an issue that I subsequently reported on. This will never happen again. I now realize that I have to create inseparable boundaries between my role as a small businessman and my role as an independent commentator.
I accept full responsibility for my lack of good judgment. I am paying the price. Tribune Media has cancelled my column. And I have learned a valuable lesson. I just want to assure you that this will never happen again, and to ask for your forgiveness.
But at the same time, when ethical lines are crossed, I will call people on them. Period.
Many on the conservative side of the coin have railed on about people like Bill Moyers receiving tax monies to promote a political agenda in the past, yet those same voices are silent now.
The bottom line is that wrong is wrong.
I appreciate Williams' apology this morning, and his stock certainly rises a bit as a result. He has owned up to his mistake and is willing to move forward. I, too, am willing to move forward, and while I can certainly forgive his shortcoming in this case, I cannot ignore it.
I stand by my statement of Friday, when I indicated that his word would be suspect in the future.
While his apology appears genuine, only his actions as time moves forward will tell me if he truly has learned his lesson and is worth listening to again.
"If that means that I'm throwing him under the bus, I'm sorry."
Bullshit. You're quite happy to do it......the campaign you are running here and elsewhere is only thinly disguised (as indignation) self-promotion of yourself.
Are you sure my George Soros check for opposing the Drug War isn't being deposited in your account? I keep missing it.
Seriously, though, foundations have to publish their spending. To take government propaganda money in secret is quite different.
Way out of line buddy! You apparently don't know Michael very well............
"You apparently don't know Michael very well............"
Good call. But he's doing his best to change that......AT ARMSTRONGS EXPENSE!
For example, let's say that he had some differences of opinion with NCLB that he developed over time. Let's say that he would like to see the abolishment of the DOE (as many conservatives do).
Mind you, I'm just throwing out examples.
But given that, how do we know that we aren't getting his honest opinion, as opposed to what the DOE has told him he HAS to say?
Boortz made a great example on the air Friday: He comes in and wants to decide on a topic of discussion. As opposed to what he wants to talk about, he talks about what the highest bidder wants him to talk about.
This is no different.
Great minds think alike, I guess....[g]
You don't know me, and that's fine.
You don't know what I've done, and that's fine.
And quite frankly, considering you don't know what work I do or don't do on an ongoing basis (or here on FR for quite awhile, mind you), bite me.
If I were trying to "promote myself," there are far more lucrative vehicles that I have at my disposal.
I have an honest concern for the image presented of and by black conservatives. And when people, ON EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, are out of line on something like this, then I'm going to call them on it. Period.
Quite frankly, you can take your blind allegiance, fold it thrice and insert it sideways. I don't care.
I think Michael is disappointed - I know I am - I still respect the man but thought he was smarter than this - he'll learn and not do it again -
Someone needs to ask him, then, if he wrote anything that he does not believe.
If he wrote his true beliefs, then that's what we get anyway.
One issue for me is "how do columnists normally get paid?" If the newspapers/media outlets are paying them, how do we EVER know we're not getting opinions slanted or softened to get past the papers' gatekeepers.
For example, you recall that someone (NYT) refused to run articles they'd commissioned Ann Coulter to write. I'm assuming they contacted her ahead of time...in other words, gave her chance to make changes that would bring the payday that had been promised.
I'm struggling to find what Williams has done that's abnormal in that world.....'cause Coulter appears to be one of the few to bring light on what they have to do to get their articles published.
THe next step = ok with you = is the total ban of all political speech.
Have you any idea what the FIRST AMENDMENT was written for? NO?
It wass written to PROTECT POLITICAL SPEECH - not for nambla to go seek little boys to screw! But that would be ok to you?
If they succeed in this small jerk of the chain, the final goal of these monarchists & TYRRANTS is to block ALL FREE SPEECH if it is political, and as a BONUS, they can ban ALL ads for recruiting of Army, Navy, CoastGuard ,and Marines!
THAT is also one of your ultimate goals also!
You would prefer that there can only be advertisements where the host/station/ownswers/stockholders do NOT believe in the company/source?
Why can't anybody have an ad ...let's say for SNAPPLE ... and during the show say "I like Snapple." ?? That is called FREE SPEECH --- He can also say -without the threat of being arrested, like all of you want to befall Williams- "I hate Snapple." SO?!? He will love an advertiser, but is is free speech.
If Williams, during his show, screamed and hollered like an idiot on how stupid the president was right after playing the govt ad ... would there have been a protest from you? Hardly!
If he wrote his true beliefs, then that's what we get anyway.
Chicken or the egg. Does he believe it because he's getting paid, or is he getting paid because he believes it?
[shrug]Contrary to some of the whiners here, there IS a need for columnists to be above board here -- if for the ability to be able to criticize the hand that feeds it (as it were), if nothing else.
The implication with someone who is paid and does not disclose is that they are an extension of the paying body, as opposed to an independent voice who has come to the same (or similar) conclusion.
I guess I'm voicing my distrust of the independence of just about any columnist who's paid by the LSM.
Therefore, I don't see William's problem as much different.
I'll not argue, though. You make a good point. Disclosure certainly never hurts.
I just wonder, though, if disclosure for "general" columnists should include all those times when editors ask them to change things to make their columns "better."
Misplaced modifiers, wrong tenses, misspellings...fine. Let the editors edit. But what about when they make "recommendations" on content? Should that be disclosed?
I'd vote yes.
This doesn't excuse Williams. View it as a separate issue for another discussion at another time.
Indeed.
Dear TonyRo76,
"Case in point: Mary Mapes still has her job, right?"
It's my understanding that as of 10 am EST today, Ms. Mapes is without a job.
Although that seemed to have occurred about 3 minutes after your post. ;-)
sitetest
Dear mhking,
Your comments are on the money.
sitetest
No, she doesn't. She was fired.
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.