Hoo Boy.

[Rsak]

I cannot find definitive information on his television show, but his radio show is the same as any othe radio show (Rush, NPR, whatever). That kind of show does not make him a journalist but an entertainer. Just as any other radio show has the host perform advertisements.

Also i wonder who aproached who in this deal, was it the whitehouse or Williams?

[Sindarre]

Like they need to pay Dan Rather.

Lockhart has his producers on speed dial.

[Partha]

Also i wonder who aproached who in this deal, was it the whitehouse or Williams?

Hahahahahaha.

Nallowin calls reality, gets disconnected AGAIN.

Hahahahahaha.

[Akhbarali]

That kind of show does not make him a journalist but an entertainer. Just as any other radio show has the host perform advertisements.

He also wrote Op/Ed piece(s) for one of the Chicago newspapers (not sure if it is syndicated) including one that advocated NCLB. I believe they have already stated they will not carry his column again in the future. Every other serious publication or station should follow suit.

Akhbar

[Rsak]

But Op/Ed peices are not objective news stories, thus the Op part of the article.

[Klast Brell]

Just to be perfectly clear on this.
Is it the position of the republicans on this board that it is completely OK for taxpayer dollars to be spent like this?

[ZanypherCocoapuffs]

Just to be perfectly clear on this.
Is it the position of the republicans on this board that it is completely OK for taxpayer dollars to be spent like this?

Careful with that territory. People can be pissed about ANY Tax dollars spent anywhere.

[Rsak]

While i don't really consider myself a republician, most on this board do.

My answer is that I am not sure.

We really don't know the details of this deal and what was agreed upon for payment.

I don't carte blanche feel that paying for advertisement is bad. The only way people will use programs is if they know about them.

I am still unsure of exactly what the individual was advertising. If he was advertising how the system worked and advocating parents get involved, expect this kind of action from schools, and take action when they do not perform then i don't see anything nefarious in those actions.

If he just got up and said it is good, listed some benifits, and never allowed opposing views to be heard on his show then it might be crossing the line.

[Sindarre]

The Government:
Well I'm no lawyer but this appears to be crossing the legal/illegal line on government advertisement. If the GAO finds this sort of advertising to be illegal or unethical then it is most certainly not okay to do this.

It is in the public's interest to be given the facts and information of a government program. It is not in the public interest for the government to be in the business of swaying our opinion in support of, or against, a particular program. Where that line fallls is not entirely clear but I think it's pretty obvious armstrong was hired to sway our opinion and not to educate us on the aspects of a government program. To me that is not okay.

Armstrong:
To not disclose you are being paid to support a position is unethical to the billionth degree. He has an obligation to his viewers to disclose such arrangements if he wants to be considered a real journalist. We get a lot of subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, product placement in our movies and tv shows. But that is entertainment.. not news. Armstong tried to pass himself off as a journalist when he was actually a paid spokesman. Once locked into the contract he was obligated to support the program even if something happened that would normally alter his opinion somewhat. The conflict of interest not only violated other contracts he had, his op/ed column contract that he got fired from over this, but it also broke the implied contract between journalist and the public. Way to go Armstrong!!! At least 60 minutes shilling for the democrats is rooted in their personal beliefs and politics. In that way they came upon their bias in an honest way even if it did come back to bite their ass in a big way. You sold out your credibility and journilistic integrity for cash. And for 240k you sold out cheap in my opinion.

[Rsak]

It could be a lie, but Armstrong has stated that he personally believes in this so I don't think you can say it was solely for monetary compensation.

However I fully support that you have to honest when you are spokesman.

[Sindarre]

Yes he has Rsak. But after he signed the contract it didn't matter what he personally believed anyomre. He was obligated to support the program. So even if it was altered to the point of no longer being something he would agree with.. say it was amended to prohibit hiring any black teachers (yes a totally unrealistic example used to make a point) he would still have to support it. A journalist could then rip the bill apart even if he originally suported it. But since Armstrong is only now pretending to be a journalist he would be stuck supporting a racist bill. He trades his journalistic integrity away for cash.... period.

[Rsak]

But its not that simple unless we can see the actual text of the contract.

With any good lawyer it could be littered with escape clauses that can avoid putting him in such a position. It doesn't avoid the issue of taking money to support the program, but it does not necessarily mean that he is beholden to the program regarldless of any changes.

[Relbeek Einre]

Resolved then:

It was entirely unethical on BOTH sidea, and possibly illegal on the government's side.

[ZanypherCocoapuffs]

It was entirely unethical on BOTH sidea, and possibly illegal on the government's side.

I'll agree with unethical.