Ace of Spades HQ

« "The Hallway" ("The Corner" Parody) | Main | Rathergate Report: Worse Than You Thought »

January 13, 2005

Liberal "Rush Limbaugh" Took Armstrong Williams Style Payoff

This doesn't excuse the egregious journalistic sin of Armstrong Williams, of course. The poor man has basically thrown his career away, and he'll likely never work in the media again (at least not much, and never again prominently). And that's probably well-deserved, alas.

But it is always interesting to note how the legacy media is supremely interested in conservative scandals. In similar liberal scandals-- not so much:

News that radio host/columnist Armstrong Williams was on the Bush administration payroll had liberals and even a few conservatives outraged last week, with critics saying there's no way they can trust that the pro-Republican commentator's comments hadn't been bought and paid for.
So we're wondering where their outrage was last year when radio host Ed Schultz - the much celebrated "liberal Rush Limbaugh" - admitted he was on the air thanks to the generosity of the Democratic Party.

Here's the March 2, 2004 exchange between Schultz and "Today Show" interviewer Jamie Gangel - which seems to have escaped the notice of media critics everywhere.

GANGEL: It is no secret that you are on the air for the next two years because Democratic donors have put up $2 million to launch this. Can you really say what you think?

SCHULTZ: Well, I had it written in our agreement that I'm not beholden to anybody.

Oh, well, it was "written" in their "agreement." Case closed.

I'm just hearing about this now, of course. I wonder why. And I don't wonder at all why this will be the last time I hear about this.

Question: Will Oliver Willis accuse Schultz of "shucking and jiving" at the behest of "massively-funded organizations"? (See the comments for his quote, and my rebuttal.)

posted by Ace at 01:39 PM

Comments

LOL. Oliver Walrus used the phrase "shucking and jiving". Is it just me, or does he become more and more like Rerun from "What's Happening?" every day?

Posted by: senator philabuster on January 13, 2005 02:01 PM

There's a liberal Rush Limbaugh? News to me.

Posted by: zetetic on January 13, 2005 02:03 PM

Donor money is one thing; taxpayer money is another.

Posted by: Stumbo on January 13, 2005 02:52 PM

Exactly Stumbo. While I don't back up Schultz entirely because I don't agree with payola philosophically. But there is a line drawn somewhere. Armstrong is clearly on the wrong side of it....Schultz is basically on it.

Also, if its an "egregious journalistic sin" for Armstrong to do this, what is the name of sin commited by the administration?

Posted by: Ryan on January 13, 2005 03:26 PM

'Ed Schultz - the much celebrated "liberal Rush Limbaugh"' Celebrated? By Whom? Never heard of the jerk.

Posted by: on January 13, 2005 03:32 PM

Sorry, meant to sign the previous, but got ahead of myself.

Posted by: Len - KC on January 13, 2005 03:34 PM

When it was revealed that PBS reporters were married to top Democratic officials back in the 90's nothing happened and nothing changed. The Liberal Media is impervious to change unless a boycott appears to be a likely possibility, as in Rathergate.

THE RIGHT MUST BOYCOTT!!!

Posted by: 72VIRGINS on January 13, 2005 04:30 PM

"what is the name of sin commited by the administration?"

Winning.

Posted by: Iblis on January 13, 2005 04:31 PM

"'what is the name of sin committed by the administration?'

Winning."

HA hah!

Posted by: Nelson Muntz on January 13, 2005 05:21 PM

When the truth is too ugly to admit, make a joke.

Posted by: Ryan on January 13, 2005 05:30 PM

I was also wondering when we would hear more about Donna Shelela's $700K "education grant" to the National Organization Of Women when they were about to go bankrupt (The New Thought Police, Tammy Bruce)

That was about the time I was wondering why NOW was so quiet about that whole "intern in the oval office" thing?

The same time I was wondering if things would be different if B Clinton were president of Exxon or something?

Theae are wonder-full times, are they not

Posted by: jpt on January 13, 2005 05:37 PM

I'm sorry to say this so bluntly, but the Armstrong Williams/Ed Schultz scandals on the one hand, and the Rather "Memogate" scandal on the other, simply illustrate the difference between whores and sluts: Whores like Williams and Schultz get paid for their work. Dan Rather, on the other hand, gave it away for free. Good riddance to all of them.

Posted by: Wes Seaton on January 13, 2005 11:32 PM

Apparently two more journalistic prostitutes have been unmasked, this time in the blogosphere. The "Little Green Footballs" blog of Rathergate fame is running a story, based on a piece slated to appear in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal, that Howard Dean paid the owners of "MyDD" and "DailyKos" to push his failed presidential campaign. Link over there and check it out.

Posted by: Wes Seaton on January 14, 2005 12:31 AM

Schultz was on Hannity & Colmes today further denying his ties to the Dems. Typical hypocrisy of the left.

Posted by: Slowking Man on January 14, 2005 03:25 AM