This Space for Sale

Today, a U.S. teenager was sentenced to 18 months in prison for unleashing an Internet worm that crippled 48,000 computers in 2003. The Iraqi government claimed to have captured three top operatives of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terrorist network, while five U.S. soldiers were killed by bombs planted by other terrorists in Baghdad. And a third columnist admitted to being paid to promote Bush administration policies.
Mike McManus, whose column appears in about 50 newspapers (none of which I read regularly), has admitted to being paid $10,000 to train marriage counselors. Armstrong Williams, a conservative columnist and commentator was the first to admit he'd been paid $240,000 by the Department of Education to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind law. Then Wednesday, nationally syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher confirmed she was paid more than $21,000 to advise the Department of Health and Human Services on promoting marriage. And I'm sure we'll hear more admissions in the weeks to come.
It's no secret that publicists send `swag,' along with personal pleas, to writers and editors to try and promote their clients' products and make sure their clients are portrayed positively by the press. I've gotten everything from boxes of cereal and chocolates to body lotions to bottles of wine and vodka. But my publication has a $20 limit on what we can accept. Each December, we hold a holiday sale in our banquet room, offering higher-priced items the editorial staff has received for discounted prices. The profits are donated to charity. I've kept the occasional bottle of wine or box of chocolates, but, under no circumstances, would I--nor could I--accept money from any company or person I write about.
I find it difficult to accept the excuses and explanations Williams and the other columnists/commentators have given for taking what is essentially a bribe. He claims he's a commentator, as if that exempts him from the ethical standards that apply to journalists. But he's a columnist, and while that certainly entitles him to inject more of his personal opinions into his writing, there is a big difference between promoting your own opinions and promoting those of someone who's paying you. By accepting that money, he basically became an employee of the Department of Education, one who was hired specifically to promote the department's controversial policies. It's impossible to believe that $240,000 (an amount that is several times the average salary of a newspaper writer) wouldn't influence a columnist's coverage. If you looked back at Williams' columns or transcripts from TV appearances, I'd bet $240,000 that he stayed 'on message,' parroting whatever the president has said about the NCLB Act.
Unless Williams wants to add a "sponsored by the Department of Education" ad to the top of his column, he ought to return that money. Otherwise, he should get out of the journalism business and parlay his promotional skills into a more lucrative--and more honest--PR job.
It's ironic that he got that money from the Department of Education because his one-sided portrayal of the policies doesn't do much to educate the public about the pros and cons of the administration's education policies. A good teacher--and an honest journalist--offers all sides of an argument and lets the student (or reader) draw their own conclusions. By accepting the bribe, and by refusing to acknowledge the payment for months (and even after the admission, demuring when asked if it might present a conflict of interest), Williams has lost his credibility and perhaps his audience. Let's hope he's learned his lesson.