Thursday, January 13, 2005
1.13.05 - Advocacy v. Journalism
The President of the United States said he wants to draw a line between "advocacy and journalism." That's what he told the USA Today. This is all in response to the Armstrong Williams flap. And from the President, it's just blather and a way to deflect a non-issue. In case you don't know, Williams was paid by the Education Department to promote the No Child Left Behind Law.
When it was made public that Williams took payments to promote something, government officials quickly distanced themselves. How could something like this happen? How could a radio talk show host act like this? Where's the journalistic integrity? Where are the government ethics? Where was the FCC? I can answer the FCC question.
Guess what? It's all part of the game. Williams is a part of it. He's in the same class as Howard Stern, Don Imus, Mancow, Spike O'Dell, Reitman and Mueller, and Sly. It's called the revenue game and that's all that matters in American broadcasting. Some shows get it from ratings. Some shows from endorsements. Williams accepts it from the government. To use the great cliche ... At the end of the day, all that matters is the bottom line and growing the top line.
Some in radio try to grow their ratings then grow their revenue - more ratings points equals higher advertising rates. Some companies, including the one work for, allow on-air talents to endorse products. That's another method for the station to make money - and avoid salary increases for individual talents. Some are just taking money from the government to spread the word about a policy.
The actions of Williams shouldn't shock anyone. It's marketing communications 101. If you want your message in public, tell somebody about it. Verizon Wireless does it everyday - can you hear me now? So does Miller - seen any referees lately? But, when the Department of Education, under the leadership of Houstonian Rod Paige, decides to market a program with traditional promotional and advertising methods, they are called unethical. Now, when you realize the DOE used an African-American commentator whose political leanings are documented, it makes the Democrats uneasy. Why are we using government money to promote a partisan program? We better call the FCC and have this investigated.
Stop. The Department of Health and Human Services spends tax dollars every year on health education. Education programs that are needed, but many marketing programs that would make a red state mom blush. Yes, the Center for Disease Control, buys hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of advertising promoting safe sex, HIV testing, and they are known to partner with marketing agencies (i.e., radio stations, events, etc.) to distribute condoms at traditionally gay gatherings (pride parades). Where's the FCC investigation for this? I'm sure there's some Republican congressman who doesn't want to see government money given to the gays. I'd bet Strom Thurmond would say that HIV programs are partisan.
While President Bush talks about the issues of advocacy and journalism, we need to remember that in 2005, there are no more journalists working in radio. We have talk hosts with right or left political leanings. These hosts, like Limbaugh and Ed Schultz, have captive audiences that feel a certain way. Chances are, not too many blue state residents can stomach more than 20 minutes of Rush. He's not funny nor is he an impartial journalist. He's a talk host with a targeted and segmented audience. So is Williams and that's why it's the perfect spot to promote a product - even if it is a partisan law. Before we launch investigations, we need to remember that it's 2005, the days of journalism with the style of Walter Cronkite is history. Everything is an advocacy - as long as it gets ratings.
Coming up, Tilt - I think it's a show about poker, although the promos aren't in that heavy a rotation on ESPN ... That might be more interesting than my discussion of the FCC.
-30-
When it was made public that Williams took payments to promote something, government officials quickly distanced themselves. How could something like this happen? How could a radio talk show host act like this? Where's the journalistic integrity? Where are the government ethics? Where was the FCC? I can answer the FCC question.
Guess what? It's all part of the game. Williams is a part of it. He's in the same class as Howard Stern, Don Imus, Mancow, Spike O'Dell, Reitman and Mueller, and Sly. It's called the revenue game and that's all that matters in American broadcasting. Some shows get it from ratings. Some shows from endorsements. Williams accepts it from the government. To use the great cliche ... At the end of the day, all that matters is the bottom line and growing the top line.
Some in radio try to grow their ratings then grow their revenue - more ratings points equals higher advertising rates. Some companies, including the one work for, allow on-air talents to endorse products. That's another method for the station to make money - and avoid salary increases for individual talents. Some are just taking money from the government to spread the word about a policy.
The actions of Williams shouldn't shock anyone. It's marketing communications 101. If you want your message in public, tell somebody about it. Verizon Wireless does it everyday - can you hear me now? So does Miller - seen any referees lately? But, when the Department of Education, under the leadership of Houstonian Rod Paige, decides to market a program with traditional promotional and advertising methods, they are called unethical. Now, when you realize the DOE used an African-American commentator whose political leanings are documented, it makes the Democrats uneasy. Why are we using government money to promote a partisan program? We better call the FCC and have this investigated.
Stop. The Department of Health and Human Services spends tax dollars every year on health education. Education programs that are needed, but many marketing programs that would make a red state mom blush. Yes, the Center for Disease Control, buys hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of advertising promoting safe sex, HIV testing, and they are known to partner with marketing agencies (i.e., radio stations, events, etc.) to distribute condoms at traditionally gay gatherings (pride parades). Where's the FCC investigation for this? I'm sure there's some Republican congressman who doesn't want to see government money given to the gays. I'd bet Strom Thurmond would say that HIV programs are partisan.
While President Bush talks about the issues of advocacy and journalism, we need to remember that in 2005, there are no more journalists working in radio. We have talk hosts with right or left political leanings. These hosts, like Limbaugh and Ed Schultz, have captive audiences that feel a certain way. Chances are, not too many blue state residents can stomach more than 20 minutes of Rush. He's not funny nor is he an impartial journalist. He's a talk host with a targeted and segmented audience. So is Williams and that's why it's the perfect spot to promote a product - even if it is a partisan law. Before we launch investigations, we need to remember that it's 2005, the days of journalism with the style of Walter Cronkite is history. Everything is an advocacy - as long as it gets ratings.
Coming up, Tilt - I think it's a show about poker, although the promos aren't in that heavy a rotation on ESPN ... That might be more interesting than my discussion of the FCC.
-30-
