Categorical Aperitif

Armstrong Williams on the teevee, talking about the New York Times-McCain story, saying with a straight face, "I think what it does more than anything else, it causes those of us in the media to lose credibility."

That would be the same Armstrong Williams who, a few years back, wrote columns and gave interviews praising the Bush Administration's "No Child Left Behind" program—without bothering to tell his readers and listeners that he was being paid $240,000 by the government to do so. I mean, just Armstrong Williams's uttering of the word 'credibility' is funny. The fact that someone at MSNBC thought to call him up for commentary on the Times-McCain story is also funny. And the fact that MSNBC didn't bother to tell its viewers about Williams's record of taking Bush payola while distributing Bush propaganda—well, that's just extra icing on the comedic cake.

There's an old joke about tenure in academia—something to the effect of, once you've got it, you can't lose it unless you do something really heinous, like get caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl. (Imagine variations for female and/or homosexual professors.) I'm beginning to think that media rolodexes work much the same way. What kind of basic ethical violations do you have to commit before cable news channels will stop treating you like a journalistically respectable source?

To put it another way: What kind of farm animal would Armstrong Williams have to be caught ****ing in order for outfits like MSNBC to evict him from their rolodex? 'cause being a paid government shill in disguise apparently ain't enough.

Discuss.

// posted by nash @ 8:34 AM