Pundit or Prostitute?

You knew I had to say something about Armstrong Williams, right?

There’s an interesting investigation happening right now over a contract paid by the Department of Education to have prominent (and conservative) political pundit, Armstrong Williams, promote the No Child Left Behind Act to audiences and other African-American journalists and media players. Worse, Williams admits that “there are others.”

Although it seems that the press has already forgotten about it, this seems like a good chance to debate the ethics of these types of political moves. The legal implications are unclear and there’s a general sense that this is not the first time these types of contracts have been used, but we can say something about ethics.

It’s interesting—or rather, frustrating—to me that executives in our government would choose to spend our tax dollars in this manner. As a popular political pundit, Williams already serves an ambiguous role. Is he an authority in this program? Has he performed, sponsored or studied research evaluating this program? Or is he a TV journalist? Is he obliged to report facts? What about his role as one of the few prominent African-American conservatives?

Now, how exactly are these ambiguous roles made clearer by being PAID by our government to sell a federal program to the public?

I think this is crap. I think that the Director of the Department of Education was using this as a tool to get airtime and to confuse—that’s right, people…CONFUSE—the American public into thinking that Williams’ expertise and intellectual authority on education policy has driven him to make the positive claims about the program on TV instead of the $240,000 he was making on the side. The Administration wanted to use the ambiguity of his role to their advantage—giving them a new card to deal to a minority group they’re desperate to win over.