Editorial Payola

[Vander]

I figured it would be a long wait if I let Woodchip bring this up, so what do you folks think of this?

Does anyone think this is a positive thing?

I wonder if there are more being paid in such a way, perhaps for different causes.

[Dedman]

I respect Mr. Williams' statement that this is something he believes in," said Bob Steele, a media ethics expert at The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "But I would suggest that his commitment to that belief is best exercised through his excellent professional work rather than through contractual obligations with outsiders who are, quite clearly, trying to influence content.

That kind of says it all right there. I don't know about the legality of it, but I consider it unethical as hell. Especially if he didn't disclose to his listening audience that his support was a paid endorsment.

[Zoop!]

I don't see a problem with it. It is his program/column, let him do what he wants. Besides, he believes in it anyway.

Disclosure: This is a paid endorsement.

[Avder]

Disssssssssssssssgusting.

[Vander]

The issue is not solely the propriety of Williams, but the government that paid him as well.

[Birdseye]

Abuse, pure and simple. I'd love to see how the partisan hacks try to wiggle around this one.

[Will Robinson]

No, it sucks no matter how I try to rationalize it.
And if he really cares about the issue, which I believe he probably does, he should know he would be tainting it's support by going on the payroll.

[Lothar]

If someone offered me money to hype something I already believed in and wanted to hype, I'd probably take the money and step up my efforts. So, nothing wrong there.

If I had an audience that thought I was hyping it for personal reasons, I'd think they'd be entitled to know that I'd been paid to increase my hype level, so I'd tell them I'd been paid and also tell them that I really did believe in it. He was slightly unethical on this point. (IMO, if he gave the money back but kept hyping the issue, he'd get back a ton of credibility.)

I don't know anything about the legality of the government funding someone to put word out, so I can't comment on that front. More info is needed.

I don't see any ethical reason why the government shouldn't be able to spend some of the budget for a program in marketing the program, as long as it's not illegal. If they want to set up a welfare program or an education program or some other program, and part of the budget is set aside to hype the program, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to do that (again, unless it's actually illegal.) So, on this point, it depends on where the budget money came for, I guess -- if NCLB passed with some budget money specifically for "hype" or "public relations" or whatever they want to call it, and they used that money, it seems OK to me.

In summary: I don't know enough to comment on the legal issues. Aside from those, the only ethical problem I see is that the guy didn't say he was paid up front.

[woodchip]

O.K. Birdy, here ya go.
First off, when has it ever been illegal or "questionable" to hire a entertainer to promote a product? At no time do I hear said performer/acter ever disclose that they were paid to do so. Granted in most case's, due to the nature of the product, it is quite clear that the actor is merely hyping a product and more than likely getting paid to do so. Infomercials can be more subtle at times as they may appear to be a documentary when in fact they are promoting a product of some sort. Again no one comes out and says they are getting paid.
Radio talk show host continually hype products. They say how good they are, how they have one at home and how they use it all the time. Again no mention that they are being paid to espouse such lauditory commentary. In the grand vista of marketing, NCLB is just another product that a radio personality is being paid to push. So where is the problem, other than the left has to come up with something to help their liberal allies in the press have something to report on to fill up the vacant air time they otherwise would have.
It is always interesting how the lefties try to creatively make much ado about common and ordinary events. Maybe they should go into marketing.

[Genghis]

From the horse's mouth:

"It's a fine line," he told The Associated Press on Friday. "Even though I'm not a journalist - I'm a commentator - I feel I should be held to the media ethics standard. My judgment was not the best. I wouldn't do it again, and I learned from it."

Just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. Adultery isn't illegal in half of US states, but it's still generally considered immoral.

Also, if he believed in NCLB much, why wasn't he shilling it already, or refuse the money and shill it for free? Even actors who support their election cadidates do so for free.

Woodchip, one difference is that this isn't some corporation paying this guy; it's my money being spent by a party that's forgotten it's roots. Another is that there is a spectrum of media figures out there WRT objectivity, from actors to reporters, and Williams' chosen forum leans towards the latter.

[Ford Prefect]

So Woodchip thinks it is alright for entertainers to hype things they may or may not believe in. If I had the energy I would check the back log to see where he came down on the Dixie Chix thing.

[woodchip]

So Woodchip thinks it is alright for entertainers to hype things they may or may not believe in. If I had the energy I would check the back log to see where he came down on the Dixie Chix thing.

It might be interesting. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, as other entertainers, have the right to say what they want at their performances. Their audiance also has the right to boo and not buy their albums.

Woodchip, one difference is that this isn't some corporation paying this guy; it's my money being spent by a party that's forgotten it's roots. Another is that there is a spectrum of media figures out there WRT objectivity, from actors to reporters, and Williams' chosen forum leans towards the latter.

So then you would also object to NPR broadcasting certain liberal agendas viv-a vis Diane Rheeme?
NPR is paid public tax payer funds and has no problem in promoting say a anti 2nd amendment policy. So where is the difference?

[Will Robinson]

So then you would also object to NPR broadcasting certain liberal agendas viv-a vis Diane Rheeme?
NPR is paid public tax payer funds and has no problem in promoting say a anti 2nd amendment policy. So where is the difference?

The difference is we conservatives hate the way NPR and the lefty's do that! So how can we say they're wrong if we support the righty's doing the very same?

[Vander]

One difference is that nobody knew Williams was government sponsored, while such is obvious in an NPR host. I don't think this would be nearly as bad if Williams had disclosed that he was sucking on the government teet.

A good question to be asked is whether or not the government would have "sponsored" Williams if he said he would disclose the sponsorship. Would the money spent on him be less effective, and therefore not be worth it?

[Ferno]

Here's an opinion piece about the story; collaborated from the Washington Times, USA today, and PRWatch.org.

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=1052

[DCrazy]

Guerilla News Network? Ugh...

And it's the Washington Post, not the Times. The Times is owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, a very big conservative whacko.

[Ferno]

yea.. washington post.. got the names mixed up. if you don't like gnn, you can always read the prwatch link.

[DCrazy]

True, and I find this whole thing disgusting anyway.

[Gooberman]

Why would you pay someone $250,000 who allready agrees with you? I mean, if I was Bush and was gonna shell out that much of the tax payers money, I would get like, Michael Moore to endorse it or something.

[Genghis]

So then you would also object to NPR broadcasting certain liberal agendas viv-a vis Diane Rheeme?
NPR is paid public tax payer funds and has no problem in promoting say a anti 2nd amendment policy. So where is the difference?

Vander response illuminates part of the difference. Also, does the government give NPR money and say "OK, do whatever the hell you want," or does the government give NPR money and say "OK, now say this and this and this?"

The difference is we conservatives hate the way NPR and the lefty's do that! So how can we say they're wrong if we support the righty's doing the very same?

Ah, the old "I know you are but what am I" response. If caught in wrongdoing and you can't wriggle out of it, the best thing to do is point out how the other side is just as bad. While true in most cases (both parties suck), I think in this case there is a distinction.

[Lothar]

Genghis, I think you skimmed Will's response...

[Foil]

I know it's a bit of a tangent, but this actually reminded me of something from the sports world which became a big issue last year (at least near my home):

The Oklahoma football coach accused some ESPN anchors of an unethical bias toward a particular team because of the existing contract between ESPN and that team's conference. The ESPN anchors basically responded by saying, "yes, we have a contract with so-and-so, but we have not been specifically told to endorse any teams, so we're still unbiased".

Not a perfect analogy, but it's got some similarities. I'm watching football, so I guess that's why it popped into my head.

[Genghis]

Genghis, I think you skimmed Will's response...

Hard to skim two sentences; let's just say my reading comprehension was poor. It looks like Will is in fact saying "I know you are but we oughtn't." I'll redirect my second response above to Woody instead of Will.

However, I still take exception to Will calling it "the very same."

[woodchip]

I guess Genghis, that you have to define "wrong doing".
So far there is no wrong doing involved. Nothing immoral or illegal. I view this on par with a used car salesman sell you a vehicle and he doesn't tell you all the cars problems. Caveat Emptor...let the buyer beware.

[Genghis]

What you say has some merit, if only to point out what kind of monster the fourth estate has mutated into during the past few decades.

[Will Robinson]

Genghis,
I don't really think it's 'exactly' the same, in fact maybe the NPR thing is worse, in that, taxpayer money is used to primarily promote one party over the other and those funds aren't supposed to be used that way. Definitely not equal time and all that.

On the other hand, although the Bush administration used government funds to promote their program I don't know that they aren't allowed to spend funds to promote their program, so I don't know that the Bush team did anything deceitful.
If they are allowed to fund their program then they really didn't do anything wrong unless they purposely asked Williams to promote their cause and not disclose their hiring him.

I do feel that Williams was deceitful by ommision at the very least and if it was up to me the practice in both examples would be stopped.

[woodchip]

Now that Will brings it up, I will further say that what the Bush Admin. was trying to promote was a policy to help children in school which I view as a good thing. NPR, akin to labor unions, takes the people's money and promotes any liberal agenda they so choose. Not for a one time issue, but day in and day out. I am not sure why a broadcasting company needs tax payer assistance to begin with. Oh wait, yes I do...they are a liberal front and can't make it on their own merit.
Al Franken anyone?