Armstrong Williams’s final column for Tribune Media Services runs today. It’s an apology over his conflict of interest in secretly accepting money from the Department of Education and then promoting matters involving the department in his role as an independent commentator. Like many public apologies, it’s more than a bit self-serving.

Despite Williams’s insistence that “I did not change my views just because my PR firm was receiving paid advertising promoting the No Child Left Behind Act,” there is strong evidence suggesting otherwise. In a May 16, 2001 column, Williams laments that “Bush scooped out the soul of his own education proposal” and that “the spirit that ought to animate such legislation has been bargained away.” After he got paid, Williams lavished unadulterated praise upon the No Child Left Behind Act.

Six times in the apology piece, Williams refers to “school choice,” “vouchers” and “school options.” This is a non-sequitur. The Bush Administration dumped the No Child Left Behind Act’s provisions regarding school choice to win over Democrats. Williams acknowleged this in his June 26, 2002 column: “Unfortunately, something happened on the way to Congress. On May 2, the school choice provisions were stripped from the bill.” The Department paid Williams to shill for the piece of legislation after it had become law. By this time, the No Child Left Behind Act, as Williams recognized then but conveniently ignores now, had nothing to do with school choice. So why is Williams draping his shady promotion of the No Child Left Behind Act in the rhetoric of school choice? Primarily, to make it seem that there was something high-minded and principled in his actions. Secondly, to appeal to his base of readers—conservatives—who generally detest the No Child Left Behind Act but love school choice.

Eight times in the piece, Williams reduces the controversy to one involving his acceptance of paid advertising from DOE on his television show. “I understand that I exercised bad judgment in running paid advertising for an issue that I frequently write about in my column,” explained Williams. But if this were merely about Williams running ads on his show and then writing about those issues, there would hardly be a controversy. Television ads are hard to hide, making the relationship between host and advertiser rather transparent. But this, of course, is more than about a few television ads. Williams got $241,000 to occassionally turn his show into a No Child Left Behind Act infomercial and promote the legislation to other media figures. He did all this without disclosing the lucrative financial arrangement.

“People have used this conflict of interests to portray my column as being paid for by the Bush Administration,” Williams writes. “Nothing could be further from the truth.” In the embattled talking-head’s defense, Williams has on numerous occassions criticized the Bush Administration. While his repeated invocations of “school choice” and “television ads” seem to be weak attempts at a Jedi Mind Trick, Williams is on solid ground when he maintains that the money didn’t determine that his column would be reflexively pro-Bush.

Washington, as Armstrong Williams is now finding out, can be a brutal town. But it can also be a very forgiving town. Just ask Marion Barry, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and the countless lesser men than Armstrong Williams who have rebounded from bigger scandals. Having seen Williams electrify audiences of young people from the podium, and observed his telegenic presence in front of a camera, I can attest that Armstrong Williams has a lot to offer. But if you truly wish to regain your prominent place at the table in the great national discussion, Mr. Williams, then it would be a good idea to tell the truth, issue a less self-serving apology, and return the $241,000 to the taxpayers.

 

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author