Payola Pundits
Via The Corner (whose theme song is probably the CCR classic, since I'm assuming they wouldn't want to appropriate Genesis' "Man on the Corner"), I see that The Nation's David Corn had an interesting exchange with Armstrong Williams, recently in the news for taking a cool quarter million to sing the praises of the No Child Left Behind Act:
This happens all the time," he told me. "There are others." Really? I said. Other conservative commentators accept money from the Bush administration? I asked Williams for names. "I'm not going to defend myself that way," he said. The issue right now, he explained, was his own mistake. Well, I said, what if I call you up in a few weeks, after this blows over, and then ask you? No, he said.
I agree with both Corn and the Cornerites—which is probably some kind of strange planetary alignment heralding the fall of civilization—that if Williams isn't just BSing, he should name some names. Not to defend himself, mind you, but because it's both unethical for even pseudo-journalistic commentators to be pitching opinions for rent to a public that thinks its getting sincere opinions, and because this nebulous "I have a list" dodge casts a shadow on the credibility of everyone on the right.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So there may turn out to be a "vast right-wing media conspiracy" after all. 🙂
Shouldn't Willy and The Poor Boys get real jobs and learn to play real instruments? Maybe join the symphony?
Does it really matter if pundits are taking money? They've sold out any sort of journalistic integrity long before they were even offered the cash! Does it matter if Sean Hannity is taking cash to talk about policy?
Does it matter if Molly Ivins is getting cash from the DNC to write her column? Hell no - these types are already sell outs.
Actually, Armstrong would have never even been offered the cash if he wasn't a sellout.
.... because this nebulous "I have a list" dodge casts a shadow on the credibility of everyone on the right.
I'm OK with that.
(kidding!)
I'd like to open a "futures market" to determine which political hacks are most likely on the take. Can be from either party.
I choose Bob Novak: he has some serious, serious personal disagreements with the Bushies on foreign policy, but on TV he plays the loyal soldier.
There's another reason to out them - it's our tax money they're blowing!
Well, the "I won't name any names" tactic worked so well in John Kerry's campaign...
I think it is stupid to pay tax money for this
(just as it is to pay for those ads that feature
lies about social security one sometimes sees
at movies) but am not sure why it should affect
anyone's evaluation of the opinions expressed
on websites. A very simple model would, I think,
show pretty clearly that it is only optimal for
weblog writers to accept money for opinions they
hold anyway. The exception here is good writers
who assign little or no value to advancing their
own political views. But again, why should one
care? The issues are the same here in regard
to academic papers paid for by drug companies
or corporations or trade unions (make that labor
cartels) or whomever. Evaluate the stuff on its
merits. Period.
Jeff
I refuse to criticize Democrats until I get some payola from the government.
And I will retaliate against anybody who crosses my picket line and criticizes a Democrat.
Libertarians of the world unite!
;->
I stongly suspect that Michelle Malkin may be on the administration's payroll. I recommend that she be dressed in a tight, white t-shirt and waterboarded until she confesses. This interrogation would be videotaped... just to establish that she wasn't being mistreated, mind you,
Yes clearly the scandal is that the government is paying to promote a particular view point. If this were an election campaign being supported by clandestine tax dollars all hell would brake.
As for the Political Hack futures, what's the going rate on April Dan Rather? I suspect it's down with an uncertain May contract. On the other hand Feb Armstrong Williams is probably cheep by with gains to be seen in June.
I'll look forward to these same pundits criticizing left-wing pundits who might be discovered to be on the take. As if such a thing could exist!
Heretofore, I assumed many of these pundits were just stupid. Now it appears they may be corrupt, instead. Or both.
The pundit class needs to police itself. They ned to "out" the corrupt, so that we can tell who is just stupid by default.
Or, to put it another way, would you rather be thought of as stupid or as corrupt?
What we really need to do is unionize the hacks so we can have fair pay and working conditions!
What if your head explodes after uttering something like "This administration is commited to fiscal responsibility"? You'll need Worker's Comp to pay your medical bills. Or what if you vomit in disgust after saying "George W. Bush doesn't think that we need more government"? Shouldn't you be getting sick pay while you recover? Most importantly, if some day you wind up cutting yourself to deal with the shame and guilt of saying "George W. Bush wants the government to leave you alone", shouldn't you be compensated for that work-related injury?
The bottom line is that we need a union for hacks. That's why I'm refusing to criticize Democrats until the Bush administration hands me an envelope stuffed with unmarked bills.
Once my demands are met, it will be "Of course, [name deleted to honor pick line] would be much worse!" 24/7.
Another reason to get rid of the Education Department.
I seem to remember this kind of thing was thought of as evil when the KGB was doing it back in their day. Another triumph of moral relativism, I guess.
this nebulous "I have a list" dodge casts a shadow on the credibility of everyone on the right.
Response 1:
I thought Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter already cast a shadow on the credibility of everyone on the right.
Response 2:
The right has credibility?
Response 3:
As if the recent Congressional Ethics Committe Rules changes weren't enough...
It seems to be assumed in the article that his list of payola pals would only be right-wing. Have no left-wing commentators ever taken money?
rmarks,
It seems to be assumed in the article that his list of payola pals would only be right-wing. Have no left-wing commentators ever taken money?
I don't think that that is the assumption by anyone at all. It's neither overt or implied by anyone that only rightwingers are corrupt.
The often wrong assumption by folks sensitive to criticism of the right is that all critics are defacto supporters of the left.
However...as affects THIS case, the remarks are a response to other statements FOCUSED on the right. To indict the left solely to blunt your criticism really blunts the overall criticism of an undisputable "hand in the cookie jar" gotcha of an otherwise (often) santimonious right