Armstrong Williams: NY Times story on McCain "causes those of us in the media to lose credibility"

Summary: On MSNBC Live, Armstrong Williams said of the New York Times article on 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." But Williams himself has been embroiled in controversy that undermined his "credibility," reportedly receiving $240,000 from the Bush administration to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation.

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." But Williams himself has been embroiled in controversy that undermined his "credibility." In January 2005, USA Today reported that Williams received $240,000 from the Bush administration in December 2003 to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind legislation "on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same."

On January 7, 2005, USA Today reported:

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.

The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.

USA Today reported that Williams did "not recall disclosing the contract to audiences" while he was promoting NCLB, but defended the contract by stating, "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in." On September 30, 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report in which it said Williams' contract violated a statutory regulation prohibiting "covert propaganda." According to an October 1, 2005 New York Times article, "Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party." The Times added: "In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated 'covert propaganda' in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban." In July 2007, the Federal Communications Commission cited Williams and his public relations firm "for violations of statutes and rules administered by the Federal Communications Commission ... that govern sponsorship identification in broadcast programming."

From the 11 a.m. ET hour of MSNBC Live on February 22:

PETER ALEXANDER [NBC News correspondent]: Moving back to politics, John McCain just wrapped up a news conference in Indianapolis as the fallout continues from that New York Times article on his alleged improper conduct with a female lobbyist. Joining me right now is radio and talk show host Armstrong Williams. Nice to visit with you, Armstrong.

WILLIAMS: Hello, Peter.

ALEXANDER: So, he did a pretty good job, the McCain campaign did, essentially beating back what could have been a very damaging story in less than 24 hours, and despite what Rush Limbaugh said, it would seem to me that his so-called coziness that he had been criticized for with the so-called mainstream media may have paid off. So, does he actually benefit from this situation somehow?

WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think the public actually benefits. You know, it is sort of baffling why such a credible and the newspaper of record, The New York Times, would allow its reporters to print a story which they had been vetting since last December. Many of us had heard about this story in innuendos. Many of us knew that they were not true. And no one could have imagined that without both people verifying this story, saying it was not true, that they would still go with this story. It's very damaging. 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. And it's unfair to Senator John McCain. I don't ever think a story like that would have been published on someone like a Senator Barack Obama [D-IL], a Senator [Hillary Rodham] Clinton [D-NY] at this point in the campaign, and you just have to wonder what their agenda is when you are publishing something like this, but as you said, he did an excellent job of defending something that was easily to defend. There was no truth to it.

ALEXANDER: So the question is, who does it help him with? Does it help give him a boost, a call to arms of sorts, for the conservatives? And do you think this will have a lasting impact or does it disappear?

—B.J.L. & J.M.