Independent commentary

Armstrong Williams attributes his behavior to a lack of journalistic training. In fact, he has been quoted as saying he is not a journalist.

He's right on both counts, but that doesn't excuse what he did nor what the Bush administration did.

Armstrong, who wrote a conservative syndicated column published in many newspapers, created a firestorm late last week by acknowledging he had received $240,000 from the U.S. Department of Education to promote the administration's initiatives on his syndicated television show and among other blacks in the news business. Since then, Tribune Media Services, which syndicated his column, has announced the termination of Williams' contract. Some in Congress, meanwhile, are demanding an investigation.

The issue here is one of credibility. The editorial pages of this newspaper, as on other mainstream newspapers, are filled with opinions and passionate arguments for one side or another of the day's important questions. But when it comes to the opinions of the editorial board and of columnists, readers should expect that those opinions are independent of undue outside influence. If a conflict exists, it must be disclosed clearly so the reader may take it into account.

For instance, whenever we opine on matters related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we disclose that the church owns the newspaper. Two of our more popular columnists, LaVarr Webb and Frank Pignanelli, are paid to consult and advise organizations at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but their involvements are clearly stated in each column.

This is where journalistic training comes in. Once he received the government money, Williams was obligated to make that fact clear to his readers and viewers. Of course, such a payment clearly taints anything he says on the subject of education, which is something he should have taken into account before signing the contract. Even if Williams does not consider himself a journalist, the editors and owners of the outlets that use his material need to know the extent of his independence.

As for the Bush administration, it is difficult to imagine how such a use of taxpayer funds could be explained as anything other than the purchase of propaganda. Administration policies should rise or fall on their merits, not according to how generous officials are in buying voices with treasury funds.

Certainly, pundits come preloaded with conservative or liberal bents based on their own life experiences. Those are legitimate biases that reflect the various ways in which humans perceive the world around them. But there is nothing legitimate about accepting large amounts of cash to express an opinion, and then acting as if that opinion comes directly and only from the heart.