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.
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.