We are the new media.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
By David Rogers
January 10, 2004
The New Editor
Armstrong Williams has issued an apology for writing in support of the No Child Left Behind
Act after the PR firm which he owns was hired to promote No Child Left Behind. The mea
culpa by Williams was called for strongly from all corners of the media, including, perhaps
most notably, by Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online.
But the question arises – was the apology necessary or even appropriate? Williams was paid
to advertise on his talk show for legislation that he already supported, and had supported for
years. How is this fundamentally different from CBS taking money from John Kerry?
As Williams says, he is an entrepreneur. He takes money from customers. In exchange, like
radio hosts all across the world, he endorses their products. Sometimes he endorses
products for which he is not paid. As long as the advertisements for the No Child Left
Behind Act were labeled as such, there seems to be no conflict on interest. Certainly, this
behavior doesn’t warrant the Tribune company’s cancellation of Williams’ column.
Some have labeled this a “failure of disclosure.” But when you run paid advertising, that is
disclosure.
As the New York Times noted, the Clinton administration was more active than the Bush
administration in planting prepared news. Are ALL of the reporters across the country who
cooperated with the Clinton administration now going to be fired? Will every newspaper that
endorsed a candidate and subsequently (or previously) accepted advertising from that
candidate now cancel itself?
This feeding frenzy on Williams has gotten out of hand. It is time for self-righteous
columnists everywhere to accept that advertising supports almost all media (except this
humble blog, which is supported solely by its authors. That’s not to say we wouldn’t take
John Kerry’s money – he just hasn’t offered, and we haven’t solicited.) And, of course, Mr.
Goldberg’s employer, National Review, routinely accepts advertising on the contentious
issues that it covers in its editorial pages. Unsurprisingly, most of its advertisers are
conservative. But no one is suggesting that Mr. Goldberg be fired for writing about issues
his advertisers’ address.
It is impossible for professional paid media to operate without money. Often, news
departments support advertisers’ positions. Often, they oppose advertisers’ positions. The
key to making this work is that advertising not be allowed to purchase editorial opinion. But
Armstrong Williams was supporting No Child Left Behind BEFORE the advertising was
purchased.
Williams received direct payments for ADVERTISING for a specific issue. He was already
advocating for the issue BEFORE there were any payments made. This is NO different from
a radio personality who mentions on the air that he likes X product, and the X product
company subsequently hires him to ADVERTISE their product. I don't understand why this
is a difficult concept.
Williams says often on his show that he owns his show. So does Rush Limbaugh. Many,
many, many, syndicated radio hosts own part of their shows. Dan Rather is a CBS
STOCKHOLDER. He is, therefore, part owner of his show. (BTW, most anchors and major
personalities at that level have some ownership or stock option interest.)
I have never criticized Dan Rather for taking the positions advocated by CBS advertisers. I
have criticized him for NOT ADMITTING that he was in fact advocating. But that's not a
problem with Armstrong Williams – he is openly an advocate.
Now, USA Today reports that Armstrong’s contract called for him to use contacts with
America's Black Forum, a group of black broadcast journalists, 'to encourage the producers
to periodically address' NCLB."
Note that language – “Address” the issue. Not advocate for or against. Again, editorial
independence is not at stake here. Armstrong had a previous position. He was being paid to
encourage others to talk about this issue, and they, in turn were free to either discuss the
issue or not, and to take whatever positions they felt appropriate.
If Armstrong did not disclose that he was working on behalf of the Administration in his
discussions with America’s Black Forum, this is probably a minor ethical lapse in his
relationship with ABF, but certainly not enough to warrant firing from an unrelated
journalism job or column cancellation. And we don’t know whether Armstrong discussed
that with ABF or not.
Now, $240,000 – the total amount of Armstrong’s contract payment – is a lot of money,
even for a guy like him.
But we have no idea how much of the $240,000 was for his contacts with ABF and how
much was for advertising. My guess is that is was almost all for advertising. Again -- to the
extent he was lobbying ABF to “address” the issue that has nothing at all to do with his
journalism – it goes only to the nature of his relationship with ABF. His journalism was
completely unaffected.
Moreover, no one is claiming that Williams is objective. He is an advocate -- an opinion
journalist. This is not Dan Rather secretly sneaking his or an advertisers' bias into a
supposedly objective news story. This is an advocate being paid to do what he is doing
already. And no one is buying Williams’ position – he staked out a position before he was
hired and he did not change that position once he was getting paid.
Virtually all commentators and major news personalities make appearances at industry
conferences or make speeches on campuses for very, very, very large fees. Sam Donaldson
of ABC News, for instance, commands more than $20,000 per appearance. Goldberg
probably commands upwards of $5,000 per appearance. Either one may later go on to report
on that college or that industry, and no one demands they be fired for that.
Armstrong isn't pretending to be objective and hiding the ball. He isn't changing his opinion
for money. He is not changing the content of the news or entertainment program because of
payments made.
This is no different from a member of the morning Zoo Crew telling you, on the radio, that
he likes XYZ Burgers, and you should too. This ain't the news. And it's not hidden. That's
what matters.
Let’s give this small businessman, Armstrong Williams, a break. I thought conservatives
supported smart, successful, black entrepreneurs.
David Rogers is a contributing editor for The New Editor.
Paul Geary
David Rogers