Armstrong Williams

Here is the original story in USA Today. ABC has an article here, too.

Michelle Malkin doesn't like it and Jonah Goldberg thinks that it is, at least, dumb.

NewsMax and the Freepers respond by pointing out that Moyers and NPR, and the like, are much worse. I think the case for Left bias at PBS, NPR, CBS, etc. has been made, but more on this later.

Joe Scarborough is agreeing with Malkin and Goldberg, calling it "sleeze" (right now as I am writing this), saying if it had been Clinton and CBS News we would go nuts. Further, he says that this kind of thing will confirm what Frankin and the lefty trolls have been saying -- vast right wing conspiracy. Can you imagine Eric Alterman's response?

There is one fuzzy issue. Armstrong is not really a journalist. Technically, he is not held to the same professional ethic as journalists. He is a columnist and commentator. He must be held to that standard. Perhaps, in this case, the standard is the same. I tend to think it should be. I say that he should have told his audience that he had been paid. That seems unethical to me. But was it wrong to hire him in the first place? It was certainly stupid, but should it be unethical? Are not columnists paid for their opinion anyway? It was terribly unethical for him not to tell us that he had been paid to comment on NCLB, yes, but, was it wrong to pay him?

Does this mean that the government can not pay an expert who also publishes his opinions? I mean, if you want to hire an expert to help inform the public would you not seek out one that is widely known?

Further, was he actually paid to promote it? Or, was he paid because he promotes it? Was the content of his work purchased? USA Today said he was paid to comment on it and to encourage others to do the same. Presumably this could entail both praise and criticism.

I raise this issue, not out of naiveté, but to propose this: can the administration pay two commentators, one for and one against the bill to debate it in their columns? This certainly would not qualify as propaganda. If this is acceptable, then could one not argue that since the majority of the media is against the bill, Armstrong was hired merely to provide the public with fair debate? I think this is what the Freepers are saying.

If not, then are we saying that the government must not influence public debate? That seems an absurd goal -- it does this all the time. Heck, the government used to mandate equal time.

In any case, how could Paige, et al., not know that this would be counter-productive? I would fire him in a second. I would also fire Williams. I would not prosecute him and I might not prosecute Paige, but heads should roll.

I should probably say that I, personally, would never accept money like this; not just because it looks bad; not just because it gives ammunition to the Left; but for the very reason that Michelle and Joe are mad -- it is disgusting. I'd feel like a whore.