With the Furor over Armstrong Williams...

[TragicMonkey]

From one pedant to another, it's called an initialism, of which acronyms are a subset. But who in the hell knows that except me and you?

Penn Jillette. I learned it from his book Sock, which I recommend to everybody, and not just because it has a sock monkey in it.

 

[hgc]

I wasn't aware that he was considered a real journalist. I thought he was another radio personality / columnist news analyst type. I'm not familiar with his work so I have to go on what I hear to an extent.

He also doesn't call himself a journalist, but is willing to be held to that standard.

"Even though I'm not a journalist — I'm a commentator — I feel I should be held to the media ethics standard. My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it."

And I think that he traded on the credibility, such as it is, that attaches to media figures doing their thing in journalistic settings (ie., TV commentator on news and news commentary programs).

 

[Lurker]

There is a reason I asked for a transcript to be reviewed. Sites like media matters, MRC, and newsmax selectively quote the sources they are bent on attacking and also frame excerpts to add a context of bias to poison the well.

True. I was mistaken, I read about this on dailyhowler.com. Excerpt below:

IT TAKES THREE TO KNOW ONE: If you watch the propaganda mill euphemistically known as the Fox News Channel, you may not have the slightest idea why Armstrong Williams is in hot water. On Friday night’s O’Reilly Factor, then on Sunday’s Fox & Friends, the channel’s stars let Williams pretend that he had simply taken money to run legitimate TV/radio ads about the No Child Left Behind program. By Friday morning, it was clear that Williams had been paid to do far more than that. But his Fox hosts stared into air, letting Williams pretend he was being slammed for a “perfectly legitimate” ad buy.

(HOWLER)The rehab started on Friday night, when Bill O’Reilly interviewed “the man in the accusation zone, conservative Armstrong Williams.” In his introduction, O’Reilly did manage to say that Williams “was reportedly paid $240,000 of Department of Education money to say good things on television and in print about the No Child Left Behind Act.” But when Williams was asked for his view of the flap, he stressed the TV and radio ads, a normal part of broadcasting:

WILLIAMS (1/7/05): Thank you, Bill. Well, Bill, about a year ago, we were approached by Ketchum Communications. They had been hired by the Department of Education to promote No Child Left Behind and to educate the audience about many of the issues surrounding it. They approached us about becoming a sub-contractor because they thought we were in a unique position, not just the fact that I'm a media pundit. I own my own syndication, the rights to our productions. And we syndicate my daily one-hour television show, which is on Liberty, Sky Angel, Christian Television Network and a host of other stations around the country. And they wanted to buy advertising spots. They wanted to advertise No Child Left Behind on our shows. And we worked out a situation where they got a one-minute commercial which ran twice in the show. And it was a commercial with Secretary Paige explaining the different aspects of No Child Left Behind.

O'REILLY: Right.

WILLIAMS: At the time, because I wear these dual hats, I had no idea what controversy that could unfold as a result of my being in the media on the one hand and my accepting dollars to advocate something that I already believed in, had already advocated. But it gave the appearance that I was paid to advocate No Child Left Behind.

(HOWLER)That was Williams’ total statement. Of course, since political entities “buy advertising spots” all the time, it was hard to see the problem with the conduct described. And as the interview continued, O’Reilly seemed to help Williams pretend that he had only been paid to run ads. Here’s one early exchange, for example:

WILLIAMS (1/7/05): Well, let me explain something to you, though. On our show, where they pay for the advertising, we did periodically disclose to the audience that we were being paid.

O'REILLY: No, but you have to say, though, if you're going to do any kind of work for the DOE, you have to say they paid for this every time. It's called full disclosure.

WILLIAMS: Oh, OK, I see your point.

O'REILLY: Every time. If you interview Rod Paige, you have to say, in a lead to Rod Paige, “he buys ad time on this show.” I'm going to interview a guy later on in The Factor who's on the same radio station that I'm on. OK, and I got to say that KLI operator in Dallas carries The Radio Factor. It's transparency, because it looks bad, you know what I'm talking about? You're not going to go jail for this, but it looks bad.

(HOWLER)The conversation kept making it seem that Williams had only accepted money to run those TV and radio ads. Of course, Williams had also been paid to have Paige on his show as a guest. But O’Reilly allowed that fact to be hidden. Mr. O scolded Williams for his bad judgment. But to an average viewer, it must have been hard to know just what the fuss was about.
But by Sunday, when Williams did Fox & Friends, the deception was total and repetitive. In the course of a nine-minute interview, Williams kept framing the issue in terms of selling ad time, mentioning nothing else for which he’d been paid. And his three Fox hosts went along with the sham. In her introduction, for example, Fox toady Juliet Huddy pandered to Williams, calling him “a trooper for joining us.” But here’s the trooper’s opening statement, given in its entirety:

WILLIAMS (1/9/05): First, let me just correct something. We were hired as a sub-contractor by Ketchum Communications, who were hired by the Department of Education. They used my show, The Right Side with Armstrong Williams, to buy advertisements to promote No Child Left Behind. It was a legitimate ad buy.

(HOWLER)That was Williams’ total statement. But at no time in the nine-minute session did anyone note that Williams was paid for more than a simple ad buy. And Williams kept pimping the bogus idea that the flap concerned nothing but legitimate ads. For example, here was the heart of his second statement:

WILLIAMS (1/9/05): This is the only time, and the only issue—No Child Left Behind—that I’ve ever been associated with where we were ever paid advertising dollars.

(HOWLER)Since there’s nothing wrong with being “paid advertising dollars,” it was hard to see what the fuss was about. But Williams just kept pushing this frame—and his Fox hosts kept staring into air:

WILLIAMS (1/9/05): My issue is, as a media pundit, should I be accepting advertising dollars from the government?

(HOWLER)Asked if he would return the money, Williams gave this absurd reply:

WILLIAMS (1/9/05): No. Because they paid for the advertising. The contract was only for six months. After the six months, the contract was over, Kethchum came back to us after seeing what exactly was delivered. As a result of the advertising on our program there were six million hits to the No Child Left Behind web site. That is why they renewed the contract.

(HOWLER)Over and over (and over and over), Williams kept pretending that he was only paid to run legitimate ads. And none of his three Fox hosts ever tried to correct or challenge him. Indeed, by the end of the session, the hosts had reached new ground in their open pandering, agreeing with Williams when he said he was being held to “a higher standard than anyone else.”
Was Williams paid to pimp for Bush? Yes. But then, these hosts are paid to pimp for Williams! They know what Roger Ailes pays them to do, and they delivered on Sunday like cash machines. “God bless you,” one host said to Williams as The Three Storeboughts signed off.

I doubt Fox will put the whole trascript up on their site. They never seem to put the ones up that cast a bad light on them or their hosts (my opinion).

Lurker

 

[corplinx]

True. I was mistaken, I read about this on dailyhowler.com. Excerpt below:



I doubt Fox will put the whole trascript up on their site. They never seem to put the ones up that cast a bad light on them or their hosts (my opinion).

Lurker

Nice axe job by the Howler. They even make Sean Hannity's commonly uttered God Bless sound like some kind of sinister bias. We all know Hannity is a moronic shill on an opinion show, but the Howler leaves it out to give the impression that a real journalist said it.

Look, I saw the O'Reilly piece and I did not get the impression that there was a whitewash going on. Maybe I was influenced since Special Report that afternoon basically lambasted the affair with comments such as Mort Kondracke's "Republicans think they can just buy influence with black americans".

Now, I am sure I could cherrypick the Fox coverage that day and make a case that they were showing an anti-bush and playing the race card.

What I want to know is why so many of you are reading the howler and mm? Do you read newsmax and mrc for balance or something? Those sorts of websites just irk me. I don't bother reading them because I already know what they are going to say about any given thing usually.

 

[headscratcher4]

Now, point A is no big deal after years of hearing about 500 dollar hammers and government excess. Bush is not known as the fiscal tightwad president. In other words, the shock factor is low.

It actually could be a big deal. $500 dollar hammers are stupid, but it is a problem of oversight and management (and a government menatlity that money is endless).

But, paying "commentators" may infact be outright illegal. My recollection is that there are laws prohibiting government for paying for propoganda (as opposed, for example, to members of the Administration being trotted-out to push the President's program). This deal paid someone in the media (and he is a "commentator" not a reporter, though I think some of the standards regarding disclosure still apply). Not only was it a stupid use of the money (Williams said he supported the law anyway and would thus probably have talked positively about it regardless of whether he got the money and, in any event, he wouldn't have talked agaist it), but it is but one more blurring of the line between big-government and big media.

If our govenrment takes to paying commentators and reporters, are we not essentially developing a state media? Will we not eventually end up like say Saddam, to use an extreme example, where all commentatorrs and reporters owe their livelyhood to the state? And, where is the accountability? When the Secretary of Education was on his program he asked him questions, just like a reporter, but didn't disclose that he was on the payroll.

I can only imagine what the reaction on the right would be if it were shown that the Clinton Administration had paid Al Hunt or someother "commentator" of a more liberal bent to "push" its initatives...

Oh how times, and standards are changing....

 

[Dorian Gray]

Corplinx, if a Dem president had done it, you'd be complaining. Stop being such an apologist. What's wrong, can't work the "liberal biased media" angle this time?

I swear, no Republican/conservative can ever freaking admit they did anything wrong! From Bush's inability to come up with a single thing in the debates, to Rush and Bill claiming that investigations or suits against them were 'politically motivated', to giving medals to the guy that said WMDs were a slam dunk, the guy who let Osama go, and the guy who disbanded the Iraqi army, to Rummy dismissing the chunkified troops with his "army you have" spiel - unbelieveable.

 

[corplinx]

It actually could be a big deal. $500 dollar hammers are stupid, but it is a problem of oversight and management (and a government menatlity that money is endless).

I meant a big deal in the media. Bush pissing away 240k on paying someone to shill their program isnt that surprising or shocking in the beltway. I think most people were shocked because of who it was and the fact that he didn't disclose.

 

[corplinx]

Corplinx, if a Dem president had done it, you'd be complaining. Stop being such an apologist. What's wrong, can't work the "liberal biased media" angle this time?

I swear, no Republican/conservative can ever freaking admit they did anything wrong!

I haven't defended the administration here, just defended the press for not making it the crisis of the week.

Those dollars paid to this guy were my tax dollars and I'm very unhappy about it. However, this thread is about the media coverage. If you want to here my whine about government excess and waste, start another thread.

Take that axe you have to grind with me and shove it somewhere pleasant Mr. Troll.

 

[hgc]

...

Those dollars paid to this guy were my tax dollars and I'm very unhappy about it. However, this thread is about the media coverage. If you want to here my whine about government excess and waste, start another thread.
...

The amount of money is insignificant (except to Williams).

The lack of disclosure is obviated by the fact that if he had to disclose he wouldn't have done it in the first place. It's a moot point.

I don't even care that much about Williams personally. What he did is now public information, and if anyone ever trusts him again as a journalist/commentator, then bully for them all.

The outrage is justifiably large, in my opinion, because the administration is buying off media to spread propaganda. That it's tax dollars merely makes it illegal, perhaps, and should be prosecuted if there's a case. But even if the cash came from campaign or private funds, it would be just as outrageous. It makes me wonder how many other ways these creeps have found (that I don't know about) to manipulate the body politic in dishonest ways. I know that Bush and minions lie through their teeth on a daily basis, just not all the creative ways they have of doing it.

 

[kalen]

Money makes the world go 'round.

In Iraq, journalists just recently got some money from Allawi.

Financial Times story here.

 

[Lurker]

We all know Hannity is a moronic shill on an opinion show, but the Howler leaves it out to give the impression that a real journalist said it.

Well, since Hannity acts as if he is giving the unvarnished truth to his listeners and since his show (radio and TV) are quite popular, and since I have heard many a conservative (Ok, the dopier ones I admit) that they get their "news" from Hannity and Limbaugh, you'll have to excuse me if I kind of disagree with your nonchalance. Even opinion talking heads should tell the truth, no?

Look, I saw the O'Reilly piece and I did not get the impression that there was a whitewash going on. Maybe I was influenced since Special Report that afternoon basically lambasted the affair with comments such as Mort Kondracke's "Republicans think they can just buy influence with black americans".

Kondracke must not have gotten the memo from Ailes. LOL! I kid! O'Reilly definitely gave Williams a pass. Of course that could have been because Mr. O was totally unprepared and had no idea of the details of the situation. He is certainly not a detail person and pursues his meme despite evidence.

Now, I am sure I could cherrypick the Fox coverage that day and make a case that they were showing an anti-bush and playing the race card.

You have yet to show DH cherrypicked. I have seen no transcripts on FoxNews that mention Armstrong beyond what the Howler said thus far. If you think you can cherrypick the Fox coverage, then show me.

What I want to know is why so many of you are reading the howler and mm? Do you read newsmax and mrc for balance or something? Those sorts of websites just irk me. I don't bother reading them because I already know what they are going to say about any given thing usually.

Well, the DH is quite interesting as it shows how journalists allow politicans and the like to lie or misinform, despite known evidence to the contrary. The basic tenet of the DH is not so much that the media is biased or politically motivated - it is that the media is lazy and more concerned about their own interests than yours or mine. I used to have a tendency to believe something on a news program at face value but have learned that this is extremely unwise.

Feel free to show how the Howler gets things wrong or misrepresents. It is no sacred cow in my book but I have not seen it discredited yet.

As to NewsMax, I have and do read it from time to time.

Lurker