Another day, another conflict of interest revealed.

By now you’ve already read the Howard Kurtz story on Maggie Gallagher, who got paid to do HHS marriage work and wound up writing in support of HHS policy during the same year–including in a piece for us.

We (Rich and I) did not know about the relationship until late yesterday, when Howard Kurtz called. Had we known about it, as Rich told Kurtz, we would have disclosed it, of course, so you knew where she was coming from. We wish we had known—I wish she had told us.

Is this different than Armstrong Williams? I think so. She is a marriage expert. That’s why she has a syndicated column. And that’s why the government hired her, to do marriage work (it’s what she does), not to promote anything (Williams got money to talk up NCLB). Of course, countless academics and scientists do do grant and research work for the government everyday. That said, as she now acknowledges, that all should have set off an alarm bell for her when it came to her supporting government marriage-related policy in her column and her freelance work.

As for us, I’m uncomfortable with the situation. We should have disclosed the relationship, given what she was writing about. Had we known, we would have. We have to rely on our authors to tell us these things–we obviously cannot do background checks on authors every time we accept a piece. Post-Williams, authors need to go the extra mile to be upfront about any perceived conflicts of interest. And, as a matter of policy, we’re now going to routinely remind them they’ve got to clue us in.

If you feel uncomfortable/deceived, I apologize. I’m fairly certain, though, for what it is worth, that Gallagher’s positions are what they are, with or without having done work for the administration. But you should have had all the facts.