Mr. Williams has repeatedly said in his damage-control press appearances that he was being paid the $240,000 only to promote No Child Left Behind. He also routinely says that he made the mistake of taking the payola because he wasn't part of the "media elite" and therefore didn't know "the rules and guidelines" of journalistic conflict-of-interest. His own public record tells us another story entirely. While on the administration payroll he was not only a cheerleader for No Child Left Behind but also for President Bush's Iraq policy and his performance in the presidential debates. And for a man who purports to have learned of media ethics only this month, Mr. Williams has spent an undue amount of time appearing as a media ethicist on both CNN and the cable news networks of NBC.
-- Frank Rich
Sometimes things occur that supply a moment of crystal clarity. The idea that the federal government is (secretly) using our tax dollars to pay conservative shills [Frank Rich supplies excellent commentary on Armstrong Williams' character] is simply disgusting. Let's be clear about this. Two hundred and forty thousand dollars, which is about six times what many working people made a year*, was supplied without disclosure (which, though not that experience suggests they care, violates at least the spirit of federal law) to a "journalist" ["I'm not a journalist; I'm a pundit," Armstrong.] who might just have been voicing his own opinions anyway.
Not a bad job, if you can get it, hmm? And, when called upon it, the administration stonewalled, misrepresenting things in the process (see Rich's commentary). Oh, and CNN does not come off very well in the process either. Credit should be given, and sometimes isn't, to some good coverage of ongoing questionable dealings. The coverage is incomplete, of mixed value, and is never quite cumulative enough. An ongoing summary is necessary -- the torture story, for instance, has too many complex parts that are handled piecemeal. Still, kudos to Rich for doing a good job supplying criticism when criticism is due.
Our leaders, boys and girls. The individuals that you have re-elected into office. I personally cannot bear to listen to the President or various other members of the administration, since my gag reflex is of questionable strength. This sounds bad, doesn't it? It sounds like I cannot be taken totally seriously, since I'm "biased" against these people. Let's just remember that such reactions have been fully earned. And, don't worry, I will restrain myself, especially when I voice my opinions on boards where such basic truths trouble people.
Since, like the commander in A Few Good Men said, the truth is just too depressing for too many people, so they accept a lie. Fair enough ... but shouldn't they get something for their trouble? A small voucher, like those received by extras in movies or television shows? Seems fair.
----
* Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill in today's NYT sets forth a Social Security proposal that would set aside "at least a million dollars" for retirement. A person who retires at age sixty-five and lives to ninety, which might be fairly typical soon enough, will receive forty thousand a year (or 240K in six) under this minimum.