Armstrong Williams sticks up for media ‘credibility’

February 23, 2008

I usually don’t care for conservative humor, but I have to admit, Armstrong Williams had me with this one:

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.”

Armstrong Williams. Media credibility.

This would be the same Williams who signed a contract with Bush’s Education Department to tout the president’s policies in the media without disclosure…

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.

…all of which the Government Accountability Office concluded constituted illegal “covert propaganda.”

But when the NYT runs an article, none of which has proven to be wrong, that’s a problem for media “credibility.”

Hilarious.

Armstrong Williams aside, is there any compelling reason the media shouldn’t be questioned on the truth of it’s reporting? There certainly seems to be enough cases in the past half-decade to argue that the reporting of even so august a publication as the New York Times should be taken no few grains of salt.

  • Russ,

    It should, when you have some compelling evidence that they have misreported something. It should not be questioned just because you don’t like the results. And if you seriously doubt the results, then you should do some digging to come up with some evidence before you start yelling bloody murder.

  • Karl Rove may have moved on, but somebody is still writing the talking points. MSNBC is parroting the same theme. It’s almost as funny as the chirping about the “liberal media”, even though the ones they target most are the NYT (Judity Miller/Kristol/Did Obama embellish his drug past?) and the Washington Post, who to this day is defending the Iraq invasion.

  • socratic_me,

    Absolutely right, and I did not mean to imply otherwise, but rather that its often wise to maintain skepticism, even if (especially if?) the media is reporting something we like hearing. And while the NYTimes is often the right’s favorite punching bag, I’m still going to demand the same level of veracity in reporting from them as from any other source, and not accept what is printed as a matter of faith.

    None of which is to say, in this case, that I think that McCain is any less prone to corruption (personal or political) than any other major political figure just because Republicans/conservatives like to consider themselves the “values” party

  • Russ (1) NYT – august? With due respect, save that word for your grandfather or maybe the pope. If you really believed a media source were august, you woudn’t question it, as we agree you should.

  • Whatever gave anybody the idea the media has any credibility in the first place.
    I hold them in the same contempt I reserve for preachers,weather(men/women) politicians,lawyers,bankers,stockmarket prognosticators,etc. One problem neither party will face is that we are kind of like Rome in its decent. You will never borrow yourself out of debt. Nine percent of our national budget is interest on the national debt and this is borrowed from our grandchildren. This is the big problem we face now and neither party will confront it. As the old song goes, “I owe my soul to the company store.” We owe ours to Asia, Middle East and everywhere that is none of our business. Fix that!

  • Re: socratic_me
    What’s with you? Russ said he questions MSM. You’d better believe that in this day and age I do too. The Times was beyond reproach when they published the Pentagon Papers. But that was back when there was such a thing as journalism. WaPo deserved kudos and admiration when they broke Watergate. These days…most of the time they seem to go out of their way to screw up. And they seem to be more stenographers than journalist. I want the story to be true but wishing doesn’t make it so.

  • Armstrong Williams had fallen completely off my radar screen. Thanks for catching the his connection and pointing out his history.

    However, you’ve left me unsure whether to laugh, or cry.

  • This would be the same Williams who signed a contract with Bush’s Education Department to tout the president’s policies in the media without disclosure… — CB

    Yes, but… If the NYTimes’ hacks hadn’t, with that article, undermined the credibility of all journalists… Mr Williams might have gotten himself *another* nice little contract shilling for BushCo, since it’s not likely that many people would remember, or even know about, his first attempt. Now… with the reputation of all journalists in ruins… where’s his extra income to come from?

  • WTF is Armstrong Williams doing on my TV? The man pimped (yeah, I said it) Bush propaganda in exchange for cash. He is not a pundit, he’s a discredited pundit.

    If a lawyer does something illegal or unethical, they can be disbarred. A doctor can lose a medical license for the same. But if a pundit does something unconscionable they are not prevented from damaging the profession further. The journalism profession needs to find a way to get rid of sleazeballs in their midst. Keeping guys like Novak and Williams around only harms public confidence in the profession of journalism.

  • Ah, the hits just keep on coming with these right-wing clowns. The vast cleanup process will begin in January, 2009. How long will it take? To quote an infamous American Secretary of Offense, “Who knows?”

  • What does it say about the ‘credibility’ of MSNBC to even have on this propagandist buffoon called Armstrong Williams ?

    • Comments are closed.