Thursday, January 27, 2005
So E&P has a piece up about why Universal Press Syndicate is not going to fire Maggie Gallagher for being a paid shill of the Bush administration. Lee Salem, Universal's executive vice president, says
which is all fine and good -- you know, never mind that it might appear there's a little conflict of interest in receiving $21,500 to write copy for propaganda on a subject that she frequently writes about in her column. What I found remarkable is the next defense of Gallagher that Universal's vice president offers:
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense: what Gallagher did was ethical because, hey, it happened way before the whole Armstrong Williams thing -- before anyone cared about this issue, so, you know, what the hell.
I'm surprised this wasn't the next sentence:
She was asked to perform certain tasks ... It was never a question of her promoting a particular bill or proposal in her column.
which is all fine and good -- you know, never mind that it might appear there's a little conflict of interest in receiving $21,500 to write copy for propaganda on a subject that she frequently writes about in her column. What I found remarkable is the next defense of Gallagher that Universal's vice president offers:
Salem added that the 2002 payment to Gallagher was a "one-time thing." And he said it happened three years ago, long before op-ed columnists were looked at through the "prism" of this month's revelations about Armstrong Williams.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense: what Gallagher did was ethical because, hey, it happened way before the whole Armstrong Williams thing -- before anyone cared about this issue, so, you know, what the hell.
I'm surprised this wasn't the next sentence:
Salem concluded, "Furthermore, this whole story has already pretty much blown over. Why should we fire Maggie? -- it's a one news cycle scandal.
