Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law

[BBond]

Aren't these the same people who were calling for Dan Rather's head???

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh, CsG, obfuscational once again. The websites for your highway construction and elsewhere don't advocate anything, what they're doing is providing information for something that's already a done deal, and that info is quite useful in a variety of ways.

And when I see a celebrity on TV advertising a particular product, it's obvious what's happening, and who's getting paid for saying what. It's also perfectly legal. That's not true at all in the case of Armstrong, whose payments were obscured at the time. Even paying Armstrong for his part is likely illegal, as well...

You're not even comparing apples and oranges, more like apples and sea cucumbers... stinkin' sea cucumbers, at that...

Has the White House apologized for the conduct of their underlings, or even offered to issue a memo reinforcing the ground rules? Any reprimands, rebukes, or heads rolling? Nah... They never make mistakes, never even acknowledge that the possibility, however remote, might actually exist...

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: BBond
Aren't these the same people who were calling for Dan Rather's head???

More and more convinced that the ** administration set him up.

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: BBond
On Meet the Press today. More media sluts for Bush?

This could get good. 😉

More Whores?

On today's Republican Roundtable aka Press the Meat, Al Hunt suggested there are more Bush employees masquerading as journalists.

MR. HUNT: Well, I don't know what the law is. It strikes me that it's not a very good use of taxpayers' money. It's certainly as egregious a journalist violation as one could engage in. Mr. Williams' column was yanked, as it should be. I will say this. Armstrong did deliver his promise, because I occasionally worked out at a gym and Armstrong's there, and he told me several times, you know, "Why don't you write about No Child Left Behind." I don't know if I'm going to be on one of those government expense accounts or not but...

MR. RUSSERT: How many columns did you do?

MR. HUNT: I didn't do any. So I let him down. I'm sorry, Armstrong. Listen, I'll tell you this. I'll bet that there will be a great market for FOIR, Freedom of Information Requests, in the next couple weeks because I suspect Armstrong Williams is not alone. There have been other people who've been doing this.

And then Andrea Mitchell jumped in before Hunt could name names.

Maybe we should be looking for the bloggers, radio blowhards and Clownhallers who are remaining mum on this story. Avarice and idiocy aren't mutually exclusive.

I'll drop some names...

Rush Limbaugh
Sean Hannity
Ann Coulter
Kelly Ann Fitzpatrick
Laura Ingram
Brit Hume
William Bennet
And one of the favorite token blacks...Ward Connerly

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
And one of the favorite token blacks...Ward Connerly

As posted earlier:
"Anyway- why are you hung up on the "black" thing? Does it scare/offend you that a *gasp* Black person could be a Conservative?"

Are you going to run away from that question like the rest have?

CsG

 

[BBond]

The only people hung up on the "black" thing are the crass cynics in the Bush administration who used tax dollars to purchase Uncle Tom Republicans who don't mind selling out to help Bush further his destructive agenda.

Get over it. This is not just a flesh wound. It's all over the press. It was payola. Admit it. Armstrong has. It's over.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: BBond
The only people hung up on the "black" thing are the crass cynics in the Bush administration who used tax dollars to purchase Uncle Tom Republicans who don't mind selling out to help Bush further his destructive agenda.

Get over it. This is not just a flesh wound. It's all over the press. It was payola. Admit it. Armstrong has. It's over.

The only question is... will the ones responsible pay a price for their crime?

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: HomerJS
And one of the favorite token blacks...Ward Connerly

As posted earlier:
"Anyway- why are you hung up on the "black" thing? Does it scare/offend you that a *gasp* Black person could be a Conservative?"

Are you going to run away from that question like the rest have?

CsG

Not going to run away from it at all. I just find it strange the Bush administration didn't find one of those attractive white people to push NCLB to the black population. I think Ann Coulter or Monica Crowley could make me do a lot of things.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: HomerJS
And one of the favorite token blacks...Ward Connerly

As posted earlier:
"Anyway- why are you hung up on the "black" thing? Does it scare/offend you that a *gasp* Black person could be a Conservative?"

Are you going to run away from that question like the rest have?

CsG

Not going to run away from it at all. I just find it strange the Bush administration didn't find one of those attractive white people to push NCLB to the black population. I think Ann Coulter or Monica Crowley could make me do a lot of things.

Ann Coulter??? /shiver Her Adam's Apple is larger than mine!!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: HomerJS
And one of the favorite token blacks...Ward Connerly

As posted earlier:
"Anyway- why are you hung up on the "black" thing? Does it scare/offend you that a *gasp* Black person could be a Conservative?"

Are you going to run away from that question like the rest have?

CsG

Not going to run away from it at all. I just find it strange the Bush administration didn't find one of those attractive white people to push NCLB to the black population. I think Ann Coulter or Monica Crowley could make me do a lot of things.

As with the others - you failed to answer the question. Does it scare/offend you that a Black person could be a Conservative? Seems to me the way the left here keeps chanting "Uncle Tom" that they feel threatened by the fact he is a Conservative who happens to be Black.

CsG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: HomerJS
And one of the favorite token blacks...Ward Connerly

As posted earlier:
"Anyway- why are you hung up on the "black" thing? Does it scare/offend you that a *gasp* Black person could be a Conservative?"

Are you going to run away from that question like the rest have?

CsG

Not going to run away from it at all. I just find it strange the Bush administration didn't find one of those attractive white people to push NCLB to the black population. I think Ann Coulter or Monica Crowley could make me do a lot of things.

Oh, really? 😉

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: HomerJS
And one of the favorite token blacks...Ward Connerly

As posted earlier:
"Anyway- why are you hung up on the "black" thing? Does it scare/offend you that a *gasp* Black person could be a Conservative?"

Are you going to run away from that question like the rest have?

CsG

Not going to run away from it at all. I just find it strange the Bush administration didn't find one of those attractive white people to push NCLB to the black population. I think Ann Coulter or Monica Crowley could make me do a lot of things.

As with the others - you failed to answer the question. Does it scare/offend you that a Black person could be a Conservative? Seems to me the way the left here keeps chanting "Uncle Tom" that they feel threatened by the fact he is a Conservative who happens to be Black.

CsG

An honest black conservative doesn't offend me. I have respect for JC Watts but even he has a hard time defending some of the things conservatives do. Differing opinions are always good. What offends me about Armstrong is the fact that the White House had to pay him to support NCLB. This tells me he doesn't really believe in the program. My g/f is a teacher and deals directly with this initative. She doesn't think much of it.

I'm also offfended the White House determined the only way to sell a programs to blacks is to put out a conservative dressed in black face. Hey Armstrong, your makeup is running!

 

[conjur]

Now Sinclair is investigating. I still think it would be a hoot if George Soros bought out Sinclair.


Sinclair Investigates Commentator Williams
http://www.reuters.com/newsArt...ws&storyID=7289256

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Television station owner Sinclair Broadcast Group is conducting an internal inquiry into an appearance made on one of its news programs by political pundit Armstrong Williams.

Williams admitted last week he received more than $240,000 from the Department of Education to promote its No Child Left Behind initiative, a relationship he did not disclose to networks where he had discussed the subject, including CNN, as well as in his newspaper column syndicated by Tribune Media Services. Tribune has since terminated his column.

Barry Faber, general counsel for Sinclair, a station group with holdings in 39 U.S. markets, disclosed that Williams was under contract last year as an independent consultant to the company and is believed to have interviewed Education Secretary Rod Paige on a Sinclair-produced nightly news program, "News Central," about No Child Left Behind. But he asserted that Sinclair had no knowledge of Williams' relationship with the Education Department.

"Our news department is reviewing whether there was anything inappropriate that aired on our station," said Faber, who added that the contract with Williams has since expired. He could not specify the date of Williams' interview with Paige.

Faber added that no determination had been made about Williams' future with Sinclair. Because Williams, who has interviewed politicians ranging from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., for "Central," has no creative control over the program, Faber did not anticipate a problem. "He did not make the decision on what to put on our air," he said.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Armstrong acknowledged that he did interview Paige on "Central," as he did for one-minute commercials that appeared in "The Right Side," a program he hosts and syndicates through a production company he owns. But he defended the interviews on the grounds that they represented his views on No Child Left Behind regardless of their payment to him.

"I repeatedly made it known that we had paid advertising with No Child Left Behind, and it did not conflict (with) my message because I still believed it before they ever started advertising," Williams said.

Williams also clarified that he did not interview Paige within the program; he did however, refer to them on-air immediately preceding the commercials and referred viewers to the Education Department Web site.

Williams' actions, however, drew sharp rebukes from various figures on Capitol Hill, including Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., who wrote to the CEOs of Sinclair and TV One, a fledgling cable channel that aired another program produced by Williams, "On Point," urging them to terminate his contract.

A spokeswoman for TV One, a Washington, D.C.-based network targeting black viewers, confirmed that "Point" would be put on hiatus.

But Williams said he expects to continue producing "Side," a daily hourlong syndicated news program on which he has discussed newsworthy subjects from a conservative standpoint for the past four years. Through his company, Right Side Prods., Williams syndicates "Side" to a handful of network affiliates in the Southeast, including UPN affiliate WWMB in Myrtle Beach, S.C. None of the stations could be reached at press time, but Williams said they all will continue to air "Side."

He also said "Side" will continue to air on Christian-themed cable networks including Christian Television Network, Liberty Television and Angel Sky. Christian and Angel Sky did not respond to comment; Liberty declined comment.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Does anybody honestly think that Armstrong Williams is the ONLY "journalist" paid off by * administration?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Does anybody honestly think that Armstrong Williams is the ONLY "journalist" paid off by * administration?

No, I think Paul Begala and James Carville might be...oh wait that isn't from the Dept of Education - it was from the kerry camp. Advisors and "journalists"? Hmmm....

CsG

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Does anybody honestly think that Armstrong Williams is the ONLY "journalist" paid off by * administration?

No, I think Paul Begala and James Carville might be...oh wait that isn't from the Dept of Education - it was from the kerry camp. Advisors and "journalists"? Hmmm....

CsG

Carville is a strategist so he's not in question. Begala is lame, so I don't pay much attention to him anyway. But I think the biggest problem is that the * administration using taxpayer money to buy off journalists and using taxpayer money to hire PR to plant fake news stories. That's the big rub.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Does anybody honestly think that Armstrong Williams is the ONLY "journalist" paid off by * administration?

No, I think Paul Begala and James Carville might be...oh wait that isn't from the Dept of Education - it was from the kerry camp. Advisors and "journalists"? Hmmm....

CsG

Carville is a strategist so he's not in question. Begala is lame, so I don't pay much attention to him anyway. But I think the biggest problem is that the * administration using taxpayer money to buy off journalists and using taxpayer money to hire PR to plant fake news stories. That's the big rub.

Hey now. You're putting facts in the way of CsG's attempts at obfuscation.

 

[conjur]

Conflict of interest questions arise at paper which disparaged liberal bloggers
Chief editorial writer served on Bush board with Armstrong Williams
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=555

The chief editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal, the paper which disparaged two progressive blogs over accepting money from Howard Dean?s campaign, serves on President Bush?s fellowship board with Armstrong Williams, RAW STORY has learned. He is also being hired as chief speechwriter for the Bush Administration.

William McGurn, chief editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal serves with fallen columnist Armstrong Williams on the President?s Commission on White House Fellowships.

Williams was surreptitiously paid $240,000 by the Bush Education Department to promote the president?s ?No Child Left Behind? law, and was subsequently dismissed by the distributor of his column.

As a member of the Journal?s editorial board, McGurn has boasted of having ?solicited and edited op-eds for the Wall Street Journal on three continents.? Williams was an occasional guest columnist with the Journal, though the paper did not syndicate his regular column.

McGurn?s association with both Williams and the Bush administration alone is not itself indicative of conflict of interest since the editorial pages and newsroom function autonomously, though there is usually some synergy between the editorial page and a paper?s news voice.

But in combination with assertions that the Journal fabricated a quote in an the article attacking liberal blogs MyDD and Daily Kos questions are bound to surface about the Journal?s motivations. The paper was roundly criticized by other media outlets for its ?overblown? coverage. The Washington Post and the Associated Press, after making calls, decided not to run an article, the bloggers said.

The spokeswoman for Democracy for America, a spin-off of the Dean campaign, asserted Saturday on the group?s blog that Wall Street Journal reporter Jeanne Cummings passed an off the record quote to the reporters on the article, who then proceeded to use it in print.

?By the end of the conversation she had confirmed?that this was what she called a ?dead story??and said that she didn?t think there would be any article at all,? Democracy for America spokeswoman Laura Gross wrote.

?Next thing I know there appears in the WSJ an article so sloppy and so inaccurate that I spent the morning trying to track Jeanne down to find out what happened,? she continues. ?Jeanne?s colleagues committed a journalistic no-no: they took her background conversation with me and made up a quote from ?a Dean spokeswoman.? Their fake quote had this spokeswoman apparently admitting that the bloggers were paid for promoting the campaign.?

Cummings did not respond to an email request for comment.

The Journal piece, ?Dean campaign made payments to two bloggers,? (on which McGurn?s byline did not appear) prompted the Columbia Journalism Review to create a new award for poor reporting.

Markos Moulitsas, who named his blog after his Army nickname ?Kos,? copied RAW STORY on a letter he penned to the paper.

?I think it?s time you issue a formal retraction and apology,? Moulitsas wrote. ?As it stands, it looks like [authors] James and Bill couldn?t find confirmation? thus simply made stuff up to create a story where none existed.?

?If you do not retract and apologize, I would like your justification for standing by this story,? he added.

The Wall Street Journal is not new to accusations of smear campaigns on political grounds. In March 2002, the paper was alleged to have smeared a series of articles nominated for a Pulitzer that ran in the Seattle Times regarding patients receiving transplants without being informed of risks.

The column, written by Journal Assistant Managing Editor Laura Landro, came an entire year after the Seattle Times series ran, just weeks before the Pulitzer?s judges would make their decisions. Similarly, the piece on Daily Kos and MyDD came a year after a piece discussing their involvement with the Dean campaign ran in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Salon.com suggested the ?Wall Street Journal?s influential Op-Ed pages? were used ?to settle a personal score.? The award for investigative reporting was later given to the Washington Post.

Reported Salon?s Eric Boehlert, ?During the Clinton years, the Journal?s editorial page czars filled their pages with wild-eyed, tabloid charges about the president and his wife?s so-called involvement in murder plots and drug trafficking. But the Journal?s news deputies and reporters could always roll their eyes and take comfort in the fact that everyone knew the newspaper?s two universes were separate and distinct. The Landro episode, however, is more complicated because she?s a senior member of the paper?s news team, and statements from the Journal?s spokesman suggest that her drive-by column spoke for the entire news operation.?

McGurn became chief editorial writer and a solicitor for the Journal?s U.S. editorial page in 1999. He could not be reached for comment.

The bloggers named in the Journal piece, Markos Moulitsas and MyDD?s Jerome Armstrong, declined to comment about the possible conflicts of interest at the paper. Both have acknowledged accepting $12,000 from the Dean campaign. During the time they were on the Dean payroll, Moulitsas posted a prominent disclaimer on his site; Armstrong quit blogging.

Moulitsas noted on Kos that he had been paid by other candidates with whom he had signed nondisclosure agreements, often to assist with their websites. Armstrong asserted that neither he or Moulitsas blogged about any candidates they worked for, nor were they included in the Kos dozen, a dozen congressional candidates Moulitsas explicitly aided in raising money for on his site.

?Neither Markos nor I were paid consultants
for any candidates in the Daily Kos dozen, nor did we blog encouraging others to contribute to any candidates for whom we were employed,? Armstrong told RAW STORY.

?The FEC demands disclosure, believe me,? he added. ?If we blogged flatteringly about candidates we built websites for, it?d be out there?we haven?t. In fact, Markos no longer receives financial compensation as a political consultant at all, and hasn?t since the 2004 election.?

Clarification: The original version of this article did not make clear the distinction between a newspaper?s editorial and news roles. The article has been edited to reflect this fact.

Hmmm...a bit of hypocrisy going on at the WSJ?

Not surprising since this guy is in Bush's back pocket.