Before the election there was a lot of talk about how rocky second terms can be, hubris, etc. There are of course a whole plateful of potential scandals to choose from, but I'm wondering if the Armstrong Williams flap might have some legs to it. As Frank Rich notes, we don't yet know whether Armstrong is the only case of payola.
Or is Mr. Williams merely the first one of his ilk to be exposed? Every time this administration puts out fiction through the news media - the "Rambo" exploits of Jessica Lynch, the initial cover-up of Pat Tillman's death by friendly fire - it's assumed that a credulous and excessively deferential press was duped. But might there be more paid agents at loose in the media machine? In response to questions at the White House, Mr. McClellan has said that he is "not aware" of any other such case and that he hasn't "heard" whether the administration's senior staff knew of the Williams contract - nondenial denials with miles of wiggle room. Mr. Williams, meanwhile, has told both James Rainey of The Los Angeles Times and David Corn of The Nation that he has "no doubt" that there are "others" like him being paid for purveying administration propaganda and that "this happens all the time." So far he is refusing to name names - a vow of omertà all too reminiscent of that taken by the low-level operatives first apprehended in that "third-rate burglary" during the Nixon administration.
It strikes me that unlike a lot of the other scandals, which involve the military and/or CIA or other intelligence arms that at least have arguable reasons for secrecy, the payolagate (why not?) scandal is something that should have fewer roadblocks in the way. It also involves a fair amount of navel-gazing, which is very popular in this day and age. I'm not going to hold my breath, but we'll see.
Posted by Jason at January 13, 2005 10:23 AM