Not so shocking…
Pardon me a moment while I be contrary.
I’m having a difficult time working up much ire toward Armstrong Williams. Here’s why: I don’t consider him a journalist. He plays one on TV and in his former column. But he is something else.
Is he an “opinion” journalist? I’d say no. An opinion journalist is still a journalist, i.e. a person who follows the profession’s standard objective process of reporting and submits the product of that process to editorial scrutiny prior to publication or broadcast.
I don’t know what the legalities are for the government in this affair, but I’m wondering this: Why shouldn’t Williams, as a pundit in capitalist economy, make any financial arrangements that benefit his business? It seems to me that it’s the responsibility of the news media that make use of him to ensure that his work or his contribution meets journalistic standards.
I’m not trying to minimize Williams’ transgressions. I’m trying to highlight something I think is important to understand about our current electronic media environment: TV is a bad medium for journalism because (among other reasons) it requires entertainment and drama. Partisan pundits provide exactly the kind of content that keeps the “news” entertaining and dramatic. There is no journalistic justification whatsoever for any of the split-scream shows or the single-personality talk shows. But there’s plenty of dramatic justification.
This stuff ain’t news. They ain’t journalists. So why is everyone so shocked to discover that a pundit/shill (shundit? pundill?), in this era of the revolving door between media and politics, took money to do what comes naturally?–sell one point of view and the facts be damned.
And, oh yes, there are others out there–left and right.
The upshot for me is this: In our current media environment, every pundit is, and should be, suspect.
Disclaimer: Rhetorica accepts no advertising, tips, or other forms of compensation for this weblog. I am paid by Southwest Missouri State University to, among other things, disseminate my research and expertise. Rhetorica provides one venue for that effort.
Pundits aren’t the only suspects.
I think this phenomenon goes beyond journalism. I sense a growing credibility crisis in society as a whole. As the WSJ article points out, marketers - who I would define as anyone trying to push a product or idea - are scrambling to establish trustworthyness with increasingly cynical buyers by attaching themselves to anyone who still has a shred of respect. I really can’t blame them; that’s their job.
But even that third-party respect will erode eventually. Maybe I’m naive, but I think it’s a damn shame when you have to worry whether your physician is shilling for the man.
Ho-Hum
I’ve worked alongside TV media for 20 years now. I know we’re at the same fires and hockey games. But I never got the impression that the people in the nice ties who were talking into the cameras were doing the same job I was.
Sven… I recall an article in the past few months in the NYT magazine about marketing firms set up specifically to recruit shills for clients. I may even have blogged about it. I don’t have time to go looking now…class in a few minutes. But, yes, I agree that the phenomenon goes beyond journalism.
I’m not sure it’s possible to even define “journalist”. Is it someone who keeps a journal, someone who reports facts from first-hand observation, or simply someone who writes/produces for a media outlet? When a student comes to school to get a degree in journalism, what definition do you use? Prior to radio and television, was there a simpler definition? I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that in print.
I think you’re referring to this article. The author, Rob Walker, is one of my favorites.
I don’t know if it’s the aforementioned credibility crisis or a fad among flacks that’s driving it (probably a little of both, plus economic desperation among ad/PR firms), but I’m sensing a sea change in the marketing biz. And in that I include politics.
In my own little ratty corner of the media universe (I work in trade publishing), more and more companies are giving up on traditional advertising entirely because it simply doesn’t work anymore. Some are creating their own magazines or other media, filled with information or advice unrelated to the product they’re selling in an attempt to build credibility with customers. Others are fielding consultants/experts offering advice with a subtle pitch for the product (the Armstrong Williams gambit). And some have gone barking mad, dumping their entire promotional budget on one-off stunts or tie-ins.
None of this is new; marketers have always looked for an edge. But it’s accelerating, and in talking to them I detect a fear that their messages aren’t getting through. They get fidgety if they don’t see immediate, measurable results, and rarely do they stick with a project for more than a fiscal year.
So no, the Williams thing doesn’t really surprise me. What really scares me is what they’ll come up with next.
Bunker– It’s possible to define anything. The trick is getting other people to accept it
But I like the one I give in the entry: “a person who follows the profession’s standard objective process of reporting and submits the product of that process to editorial scrutiny prior to publication or broadcast.”
Re: def. prior to radio and TV. I’d say the definition I sue would have been recognized as legitimate back to 1880–the era of the rise of objectivity and a professional press.
Sven… re: what they’ll come up with next
No shit.
Thanks for responding. I was concerned you might view it as being snide.
Bunker… Seemed like a normal comment/question to me