Armstrong Williams: NY Times story on McCain "causes those of us in the media to lose credibility"
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Armstrong Williams said of the New York Times article on Sen. John McCain's relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist, "I think what it does more than anything else, it causes those of us in the media to lose credibility. People begin to question what we print, whether there's any truth to it, whether we do our research." But Williams himself has been embroiled in controversy that undermined his "credibility," reportedly receiving $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation.
On the February 22 edition of MSNBC Live, conservative radio host and columnist Armstrong Williams said of a February 21 New York Times article about Sen. John McCain's relationship with a telecommunications lobbyist, "I think what it does more than anything else, it causes those of us in the media to lose credibility. People begin to question what we print, whether there's any truth to it, whether we do our research." But Williams himself has been embroiled in controversy that undermined his "credibility." In January 2005, USA Today reported that Williams received $240,000 from the Bush administration in December 2003 to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation "on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same."
On January 7, 2005, USA Today reported:
Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.
The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.
USA Today reported that Williams did "not recall disclosing the contract to audiences" while he was promoting NCLB, but defended the contract by stating, "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in." On September 30, 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in which it said Williams' contract violated a statutory regulation prohibiting "covert propaganda." According to an October 1, 2005 New York Times article, "Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party." The Times added: "In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated 'covert propaganda' in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban." In July 2007, the Federal Communications Commission cited Williams and his public relations firm "for violations of statutes and rules administered by the Federal Communications Commission ... that govern sponsorship identification in broadcast programming."
From the 11 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on February 22:
PETER ALEXANDER [NBC News correspondent]: Moving back to politics, John McCain just wrapped up a news conference in Indianapolis as the fallout continues from that New York Times article on his alleged improper conduct with a female lobbyist. Joining me right now is radio and talk show host Armstrong Williams. Nice to visit with you, Armstrong.
WILLIAMS: Hello, Peter.
ALEXANDER: So, he did a pretty good job, the McCain campaign did, essentially beating back what could have been a very damaging story in less than 24 hours, and despite what Rush Limbaugh said, it would seem to me that his so-called coziness that he had been criticized for with the so-called mainstream media may have paid off. So, does he actually benefit from this situation somehow?
WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think the public actually benefits. You know, it is sort of baffling why such a credible and the newspaper of record, The New York Times, would allow its reporters to print a story which they had been vetting since last December. Many of us had heard about this story in innuendos. Many of us knew that they were not true. And no one could have imagined that without both people verifying this story, saying it was not true, that they would still go with this story. It's very damaging. I think what it does more than anything else, it causes those of us in the media to lose credibility. People begin to question what we print, whether there's any truth to it, whether we do our research. And it's unfair to Senator John McCain. I don't ever think a story like that would have been published on someone like a Senator Barack Obama [D-IL], a Senator [Hillary Rodham] Clinton [D-NY] at this point in the campaign, and you just have to wonder what their agenda is when you are publishing something like this, but as you said, he did an excellent job of defending something that was easily to defend. There was no truth to it.
ALEXANDER: So the question is, who does it help him with? Does it help give him a boost, a call to arms of sorts, for the conservatives? And do you think this will have a lasting impact or does it disappear?
The media as a whole [print, TV, radio, internet] hasn't much credibility to begin with.
When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose
MMFA pulls out the "When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger" card.
I'm glad they didn't attack the message because fairminded people know that NYT piece was a disgrace to good journalism.
Media Matters has been attacking the message consistently in other articles. Franklin Foser's article isabout precisely that.
Both message and messenger.
Such specious logic discredits your whole side.
So what you are saying is that Armstrong has no right to point out the obvious that an anonymous sourced story that leaves the reader guessing what really happened on is not allowed?
It was a front-page story with anonymous sources, it simply insinuated the worst that happened with saying it. That is nothing but a tabloid. Either you are the paper of record or you are a liberal blog that people can hold in their hand.
Oh give us all a break will ya COPIOUS!
Think back to all the 'unnamed' sources that were used as hammers against John Kerry in 04, Gore in 00, or the ones that went after Clinton back in the 90's in the Natl Review or the Washington Times or the USA Today, FOX Noise or any of the other corporate owned media!
Don't you dare come in here and spew your one sided attacks by ignoring the painfully obvious FACT that the corporate run right-wing media has its agenda which happens to include not giving a damn about you or me or the truth, unless it suits them!
The NYT ran with a story that is likely true, if it ultimately isn't, so be it and the NYT deserves whatever it gets. But don't waste our time here at MMFA if you are going to ignore the truth or simply presume that the NYT's is lying or wrong!
Anyways..... I thought I told you to go back to that little blog of yours (on an earlier thread) and go work on it some more.......
Ya did Cap, I saw it. Think you got a reply too.
Quibble on that post maybe but, The two atomic devices used on Japan were fission (uranium then plutonium) not fusion (hydrogen). S'ok the reply repeated that error, and it doesn't affect your argument.
Insinuated the worst without saying it? So they're supposed to draw conclusions on their own, or what? That's about the strangest complaint I've ever seen. If these people had reasons to be concerned about potential wrongdoing, that can be printed. It's not as if you need positive proof or you never run the story.
Would conservatives really think this was tabloid if this was Hillary with some male lobbyist? Of course the sources are anonymous. What would anyone expect? Let's say there really was some highly questionable behavior with Hillary, why is it unbelievable that certain people would be disappointed with her, but not want to end their careers permanently by putting their names out there?
"Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others."
The only charge that can be made here is that the NYT is manufacturing something. If two sources gave consistent testimony, apart from each other, and consistent with other details, that is credible. Unless they're just making this up out of whole cloth, I don't see the problem.
I personally don't give a damn if he had an affair. That's meaningless to me as far as governance goes. But the rules shouldn't change suddenly because it's a Republican in the hot seat. The possible infidelity shouldn't be a story, but as long as they're making it a story for Democrats, then it should be a story for McCain as well. The fact that we're talking about a lobbyist makes for a different dynamic as well, and that does raise questions about his performance.
So what you are saying is that Armstrong has no right to point out the obvious that an anonymous sourced story that leaves the reader guessing what really happened on is not allowed?
- copiousdissent.blogspot.com
---------------------------------
Armstrong Williams is nothing more than a covert agent of the Bush administration. He should change his name to Tom. Who cares what he thinks.
PBG, just for future reference, I speak for myself not for the entire right-wing. If I say something wrong or put out a bad argument, which certainly does happen from time to time, it's on me. The right-wing pundits don't speak for me, I don't speak for them.
Also, the Foser article was posted after I made this post, but I'm glad he acknowledged some problems with the Times article.
Bruce,
I really hope your response was sarcastic (attacking the messenger). To use an opposite example, would you see Bill Clinton as a credible critic on the subject of monagamy if it was found that Bush had an affair?
What if Fred Phelps was giving a lecture on tolerance?
- bruce1ace
-------------------------------------------------
From time to time? ROFLMAO Any numbskull who voted for Bush twice should be disenfranchised.
What's disgraceful about it? The linked story here made multiple mentions of the denial. Anonymous sources are not out of bounds. This is no Watergate, but there's a good example of where if someone has something to lose, they don't want their name on it.
"Both said Mr. McCain acknowledged behaving inappropriately and pledged to keep his distance from Ms. Iseman. The two associates, who said they had become disillusioned with the senator, spoke independently of each other and provided details that were corroborated by others."
If all of that is true, what's the problem? Two sources, not speaking together, consistent with outside details. That seems pretty consistent with good journalism. If that's not true, obviously that's a tremendous breach of journalistic ethics, but where is the basis for believing that to be the case? The two sources could be lying, but then that's a conspiracy, and that possibility could be applied to just about any story whether the sources are anonymous or not.
Like I said below, I don't think an affair in itself should be a story. But I also am not a a fan of the oscillating standards. If it's Clinton, huge story! If it's McCain, that's just wrong! Next Democrat that it applies to, uhhh well we'll just see, right? If they're going to stop covering this sort of thing, then I'm all for that, but it should stop for good.
"MMFA pulls out the "When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger" card."
Bruce, Armshill Bagman Williams accepted money from the Bush Administration to put out doemstic propaganda about Bush's failed No Child Left Behind Law. Black Talk Radio, AND Black Talk Radio Hosts like "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com , Ambrose I. Lane Senior http://www.weourselves.org, Roland S. Martin AND Clifford Kelley of Chicago's WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com, BlackCommentator.com http://www.blackcommentator.com, and Black Agenda Report http://www.blackagendareport.com, all say that Williams literally sold what little credibility he had years ago.
Also, the LARGER message about McCain's sleazy ties to OTHER lobbies largely MOOTS whether or not he had a sexual affair with Vicki Essman or not, because McCain certainly at the minimum had a CORRUPT FINANCIAL BUSINESS DEALING with Essman. International News Network http://www.inn.com AND Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org both talk about the non-sexual affiar components that deal with Liar McCain's corrupt ties and connections and favors for OTHER lobbyists and/or their clients.
Third, the New York Times has been covering for Liar McCain in the past, so their "disgrace" is in the fact that they have been McCain cheerleaders, and in the past, they were cheerleaders for Liar Rudy Giuliani before he flamed out.
No, Armstrong.
Being on the Bush Administration's payroll causes those of us in the media to lose credibility.
All the other pundits must have been snowed in today.
I do give him credit for hitting all the GOP talking points.
I wonder if he gets paid by the appearance or by how many of those talking points he gets into his segments.
"Armstrong Williams commenting on media credibility is about ironic as it gets."
Yeah, it's like Dick Cheney commenting on gun safety.
Armstrong: You mean sorta like how you have lost credibility to every African American in America? I'm not sure how you sleep at night knowing you're the token-black mouthpiece of Fax News. Ewwwwwww (finger down throat). You're about as credible as a Fox News slogan!
Armstrong: You mean sorta like how you have lost credibility to every African American in America?
You just said it. BlackCommentator.com http://www.blackcommentator.com and Black Agenda Report http://www.blackagendareport.com, along with black talk radio, and black talk radio hosts like Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com have all pointed out that Armshill Bagman Williams is a LITERAL sellout in the black community, not just since his payoffs from the Bush administration, but even BEFORE his payoffs from the Bush administration.
Cleven, Armshill is one of GOP-Fox News' MANY Negro conservative tokens. Juan "Happy Negro" Williams is another Negro conservative token.
Black Talk Radio, along with Black Commentator.com http://www.blackcommentator.com and Black Agenda Report http://www.blackagendareport.com deemed Armshill to be non-credible a long time ago, and in the black community, the black press, the black news web sites, and black talk radio have more credibility than the right wing corporatist conservative racist news media that promotes & sustains & puts out Negro conservative sellouts like Armshill because Armshill Bagman Williams is a self-hating Negro conservative who apologizes to white America for being a black man, as well as the fact that Armshill hates black people and/or works against black causes and/or works against the black press and/or works against black talk radio.
It is really streatching the fabric of the universe to put Williams and "credibility" in the same sentence - and to have the word coming out of this paid propagandist's mouth on the boob tube would have made Alice think Wonderland had gotten entirely to bizarre to endure.
In response to the resident trolls comments regarding credibility, I refer them to this link from today's Media Matters column: http://www.newsweek.com/id/114505
"Straight talkin" McCain has already told a different story under oath than he told in his press conference. So he lied his A** off (as usual) or he perjured himself - take your choice.
UNEASYONE: The evidence might be there right in front of their faces in black and white, but the corporate media is not about to turn that into a full color story as part of the nightly television entertainment that they call news.
Rumors of this impending NYT story has been around so long that you can bet the Republican spin script had been written and rehearsed long before the article was published. All they had to do in response was press the button that brought that script up on the teleprompter. It worked – America bought the NYT story as just a “smear” attack. And they bought it from the same crowd who are still trying to convince them of such nonsense as the Clintons are responsible for the death of Vince Foster. In general, the American TV audience is gullible and naïve enough to believe spin over truth – especially when the truth goes against a pre-conceived notion they have about an American “hero”.
To the posters above..
We must always remember how those on the right think..FOX NEWS...We Report then tell YOU what to Decide. This came out in a newspaper so who in the Republan party would actually read the article. The dittoheads wait until their Wizard speakis from behind his curtain. Simple, watch Fox news and you don't have to think.
Yes, McBush has lied once again...this pitiful Republan party will soon be designated as CONDEMNED and ready for DEMOLITION by their own insiders.
Armstrong Willaims is supposed to have confessed for the sin of selling his journalistic integrity. He "manned up" as his Air America colleague liked to say in Willaims' defense. Now Willaims' is back on the Air selling his integrity and his race. As a black person I'm calling Armstong Willaims out for this reason.
Armstong you never really confessed or came clean. You may have admitted you made a mistake, or "an error in judgment" as I think you put it. But you never told us how, when, or where you decided to sell out our children. Perhaps it was over dinner or at a bar. When exactly did you realize you had crossed the line? It must have been a seminal moment for you and yet you believe you are cleansed by an innocuous apology.
I never got a chance to ask Armstrong that question on the air. His show was canceled and I think we are all the better for it.