BCT Editorial – 1/17/05

This page was last updated on January 17, 2005.

Salutes & Boots; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 17, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Boot: To conservative commentator Armstrong Williams for taking $241,000 in Education Department money to help promote President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act. Williams then compounded his breach of what little professional ethics he had by coming up with some of the lamest excuses around for accepting this payola. As Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Claude Lewis noted, Bryan Moore [sic], assistant vice president of news at Knight Ridder and vice president of print for the National Association of Black Journalists, put it best when he snapped ‘I thought we in the media were supposed to be watchdogs, not lapdogs.’”

[RWC] I begin by agreeing that Mr. Williams’ failure to disclose that he signed a contract with the Education Department was a huge mistake. It probably would have been a mistake to accept the contract even if he had disclosed it.

That said, I need to make a couple of points.

First, the Education Department made no effort to hide the contract. Therefore, referring to the contract as “payola” is deceptive. Payola was a payment made “under the table” by a record company to a disk jockey to get him to promote a specific record.

Second, Mr. Williams supported the cause long before he was contracted to be a promoter. He did not become a supporter of the ideas behind the NCLBA as a result of receiving a contract. Even so, it does not exonerate Mr. Williams. He should have recognized the conflict of interest and declined the contract.

I find it humorous – but entirely expected – that the Times would get so bent out of shape over an opinion-oriented commentator – not a news reporter – but so far has completely ignored Rathergate. If it was appropriate to express disapproval of Mr. Williams, why not Dan Rather?

(I searched the Times web site opinion section for the last six months and received no relevant hits in editorials for “Rather.”)

Mr. Rather and his crew tried to smear a sitting president with documents they had every reason to believe were forgeries. Facts they found that contradicted their pre-determined conclusions were omitted from the “report.” That’s lying in my book, and to a far larger audience than Mr. Williams’.

When confronted, Mr. Williams acknowledged his mistake. To this day Dan Rather won’t take responsibility. He still maintains the story is true despite the fact that every piece of “evidence” supporting his conclusion has been disproved.

You’ll note the editorial made sure we knew Mr. Williams is a conservative commentator. Did you note the editorial didn’t mention the political orientation of Clarke Lewis and Bryan Monroe? (The editorial mistakenly identified Bryan Monroe as Bryan Moore.) This usually means the orientation is liberal, a label that fits the National Association of Black Journalists. It’s useful to note Mr. Armstrong is not a member of the NABJ.

If anyone should know about being a lapdog for someone, it’s the Times. If the Times and the rest of the “old media” weren’t lapdogs for John Kerry, lapdogs don’t exist.