- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 1,314
- Reaction score
- 4
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
SourceNPR Criticizes Own Reporter - UN Journalist Took Money from Ted Turner
March 3, 2005
WASHINGTON -- In response to criticism from Accuracy in Media (AIM), taxpayer-funded National Public Radio (NPR) has announced that its U.N. correspondent, Linda Fasulo, acted inappropriately in accepting money from Ted Turner to write a pro-U.N. book. NPR spokesman David Umansky says that "no reporter will be able to accept similar subsidies in the future," the network reported. NPR noted that "critics say the deal proves she's too cozy with the UN." Fasulo also covers the U.N. for NBC News and MSNBC.
AIM editor Cliff Kincaid said that a total of $26,000 from pro-U.N. sources went to Fasulo, a reporter who is supposed to objectively cover the U.N., in "a conflict of interest that calls into question her coverage of U.N. issues."
The NPR News Code of Ethics and Practices requires that its reporters avoid "actual and apparent conflicts of interest or engaging in outside activities, public comment or writing that calls into question our ability to report fairly on a subject." In Fasulo's case, she was reporting on the U.N. for NPR as she was accepting money from Ted Turner's U.N. Foundation to do her pro-U.N. book.
During a February 8 appearance on Fox News Channel's The O'Reilly Factor Kincaid said, "The problem is that any news organization that is expected to cover the United Nations objectively should not have a U.N. correspondent taking money…" Kincaid continued, "the acknowledgement section of the book only says that she acknowledges generous financial support from the U.N. Foundation set-up by Turner and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. No amounts were given." He continued, "When The New York Sun followed up on [AIM's] original report by asking how much money she actually got, she didn't want to say."
Squawker said:Let's see if the media covers this story as extensively as they have stories of Republicans who write favorable pieces about President Bush. **Sits back and waits for the outrage.
Source
You have a source that proves that?So you think it's as big an outrage when Turner used his own money to have a press piece or a book put out that slants the way he wants. As it is when the Bush Administration uses tax dollars to do it?
Squawker said:You have a source that proves that?
Our Government does it all the time. Where do you think the money for anti-tobacco ads, anti-drugs, anti-obesity, or other ads come from? PBS (radio and TV) has been subsidized by taxpayers from its inception. They have spread left wing propaganda for years. I question why it is a big “scandal” now, and if the outrage will extend to Ted Turner.Seriously, you're unaware of the many times the Bush Administration has paid for media? Such as:
By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration paid a prominent commentator to promote the No Child Left Behind schools law to fellow blacks and to give the education secretary media time, records show. A company run by Armstrong Williams, the syndicated commentator, was paid $240,000 by the Education Department. The goal was to deliver positive messages about Bush's education overhaul, using Williams' broad reach with minorities.
Squawker said:Our Government does it all the time. Where do you think the money for anti-tobacco ads, anti-drugs, anti-obesity, or other ads come from? PBS (radio and TV) has been subsidized by taxpayers from its inception. They have spread left wing propaganda for years. I question why it is a big “scandal” now, and if the outrage will extend to Ted Turner.
Judge for yourself, but I don’t think the two are comparable at all. Williams is another good man the left tried to destroy. Find out how much the teachers union paid to shut Williams up.Putting out ads or buying ads isn't exactly the same thing as paying a talk show host 240K to do a 180 on an issue is it?
SourceJanuary 10, 2005
Dear readers:
In 2003, I agreed to run a paid ad on my syndicated television show, promoting the Department of Education’s No Child Left Behind Act. I subsequently used my column space to support that legislation. This represents an obvious conflict of interests. People have used this conflict of interests to portray my column as being paid for by the Bush Administration. Nothing could be further from the truth.
At the same time, I understand that I exercised bad judgment in running paid advertising for an issue that I frequently write about in my column. People need to know that my column is uncorrupted by any outside influences. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for my bad judgment, and to better explain the circumstances.
In 2003 Ketchum Communications contacted a small PR firm that I own, Graham Williams Group, to buy ad space on a television show that I own and host. The ad was to promote The Department of Education’s “No Child Left Behind” plan. I have long felt that school vouchers hold the greatest promise of ending the racial education gap in this country. We need to hold schools accountable for their failures and create incentives to change. That is why I have vigorously supported school vouchers for the past decade—in print, on TV, during media appearances and in lectures. I believe that school vouchers represent the greatest chance of stimulating hope for young, inner city school children—often of color. In fact, I am a board member of Black Americans for Educational Options (BAEO), because I feel that school choice plans hold the promise of a new civil rights movement.
In the past I have used my column space to convey the promise of school options. I continued to do so, even after receiving money to run a series of ads on my television show promoting the “No Child Left Behind” act. I now realize that I exercised poor judgment in continuing to write about a topic which my PR firm was being paid to promote.
The fact is, I run a small business. I am CEO and manage the syndication and advertising for my television show. In between juggling my commentaries and media appearances, I stepped over the line. This has never happened before. In fact, my company has never worked on a government contract. Nor have we ever received compensation for an issue that I subsequently reported on. This will never happen again. I now realize that I have to create inseparable boundaries between my role as a small businessman and my role as an independent commentator.
I also understand that people must be able to trust that my commentary is unbiased. Please know that I supported school vouchers long before the Department of Education ran a single ad on my TV Show. I did not change my views just because my PR firm was receiving paid advertising promoting the No Child Left Behind Act. I did however exercise bad judgment by accepting advertising for an issue that I frequently write about in my column. I apologize for this bad judgment, for creating questions in people’s minds as to whether my commentary was sincere, and for bringing shame and embarrassment to the newspapers that run my commentary.
I accept full responsibility for my lack of good judgment. I am paying the price. Tribune Media has cancelled my column. And I have learned a valuable lesson. I just want to assure you that this will never happen again, and to ask for your forgiveness.
I hope that we can put this mistake behind us, and that I can continue to bring the same unique and impassioned perspective that I brought to this space in the past.
Sincerely,
Armstrong Williams
Squawker said:Judge for yourself, but I don’t think the two are comparable at all. Williams is another good man the left tried to destroy. Find out how much the teachers union paid to shut Williams up.
Source
This just says he was against the Kennedy plan, not vouchers.Those wrods would have some merit if Williams hadn't, prior to being paid 240K for his opinion, said on several occasions that he didn't favor Bush's NCLB plan. On the June 25, 2001, edition of FOX News' The Edge with Paula Zahn, Williams pointed to his criticism of Bush on NCLB to argue that conservative radio hosts were not giving Bush a free pass: "On the issue like where he [Bush] just totally capitulated to Senator Ted Kennedy [D-MA] on his education plan, on vouchers, which he's trying to revive today, we certainly criticized him on that because the plan eventually became the Kennedy plan."
Sounds to me like Williams didn’t want Bush to back down on the voucher issue, and give in to Kennedy. Most Republicans were not please with it either.And In a May 16, 2001, syndicated column, he wrote this regarding Bush's NCLB: "By letting vouchers fall by the wayside and by throwing more money at public schools than any president had previously imagined, Mr. Bush scooped out the soul of his own education proposal."
So says "media matters" for nothing.The Bush Administration ponies up 240K and suddenly he's got nothing neg. to say about the plan. The plan didn't change, just Williams' bank account.
They did? How?So really who could blame the teachers for, once they realized his opinions were up for sell to the highest bidder, they too tried to enroll his services?
Do you have a link to the column? I couldn’t find it.From Colmes's interview with Williams on the January 28 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: By the way, Media Matters points out that you criticized this plan before you got paid to promote it. You criticized the No Child Left Behind plan in a column on May 16, 2001 --
WILLIAMS: What?
COLMES: -- where you said, "By letting vouchers fall by the wayside," which they were doing at [sic] the plan at the time, so you actually went against the plan, and then you wrote more columns in favor of the plan after you signed on to this.
WILLIAMS: Let me be clear. For the last ten years, I have been a strong and vociferous advocate of school vouchers. I've supported No Child Left Behind. I'm unwavering in it. I don't know what column of mine they were reading.
But, obviously, with anything you don't support it 100 percent, but I would say 98.9 percent of the time on this issue I've stood fiercely beside this issue. My advocacy of this issue had nothing to do with the fact that I was being paid.
Squawker said:You swallow everything Media Matters say, it seems.
Pacridge said:Let me see if I have this straight. Your position is that Williams has always been in favor of NCLB and the fact that he accepted nearly a quarter of a million dollars to promote it had no effect on his opinion what so ever. Even though prior to his accepting the cash he said thing's, by his own admision, against parts of the plan. Then after the cash he had absolutely nothing negative to say about the plan. The cash had no effect on his position. And you think “Williams is another good man the left tried to destroy”, that his taking huge amounts of payola has nothing to do with it- they’re just attacking him. And you think I'm the one exhibiting a propensity to "swallow everything" I'm being told. Alright, if you say so.
You are joking, right?Democrats have no problem admitting worngdoings, their candidates shortcomings, and not supporting every single thing their party does.
You can't be serious."Some might say" that Republicans almost always support everything the White House spits out, right or wrong.
Where have you been to believe all this drivel you just posted?Just ask them about WMDs in Iraq! They'll still tell you they were there and we found them!
Yes it is. You haven't supplied any evidence to the contrary. I have very little faith in what Media Matters says. Show me the actual article or interview transcript they mention as proof. Show me what he was actually against. Lets try some facts instead of left wing talking points.Let me see if I have this straight. Your position is that Williams has always been in favor of NCLB and the fact that he accepted nearly a quarter of a million dollars to promote it had no effect on his opinion what so ever.
Squawker said:Yes it is. You haven't supplied any evidence to the contrary. I have very little faith in what Media Matters says. Show me the actual article or interview transcript they mention as proof. Show me what he was actually against. Lets try some facts instead of left wing talking points.
Given the way the major media sources treat anything connected with the Administration, there are few ways to get the Administration's message out.Pacridge said:Seriously, you're unaware of the many times the Bush Administration has paid for media? Such as:
By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration paid a prominent commentator to promote the No Child Left Behind schools law to fellow blacks and to give the education secretary media time, records show. A company run by Armstrong Williams, the syndicated commentator, was paid $240,000 by the Education Department. The goal was to deliver positive messages about Bush's education overhaul, using Williams' broad reach with minorities.
http://www.fafsa.com/downloads/Articles/1-8-2005USPaysCommentatortoToutSchoolLaw_The_Times_IN.pdf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?